If you leave a message here, I will normally respond here as well, unless you request otherwise.

Hello, Nydas, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: *The Five Pillars of Wikipedia

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style You might also want to

consider changing your username before you get too invested in your current one. Although you are allowed to use just about any name, many Wikipedians encourage others to use real names. I would suggest that you do this. I can certainly understand that you might be uncomfortable using your real name online, but, in this case, I recommend that you choose an alias that resembles a real name. For instance, my name is Nat Krause, but I could just as well have a username such as "Eli Miller" or "Abe Sokolov". If you are choosing a pseudonym, please do not use the names of famous people or fictional characters. An obscure literary reference is probably all right. As always, please avoid anything that could be considered offensive or inappropriate. Note that, on Wikipedia, you can use spaces and capital letters; for instance, "T. K. Truong" is possible, rather than simply "tktruong". I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 08:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind welcome. I have actually been visiting Wikipedia for many years, but have only recently registered. As for changing my username, I'll take it into consideration.--Nydas 17:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor: Thanks for pointing out the problems in the article on "Income tax in the United States." The problem apparently resulted from a series of edits including an enormous text dump by a new user on 7 May 2006 -- an apparent copyright violation as well as violations of Verfiability and Neutral Point of View. The new user even identified his text dump as a "research report" or words to that effect. I reverted the edits. On a regular basis, Wikipedia gets very similar material dumped into various articles on taxation. Thanks for your vigilance. Yours, Famspear 18:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help.--Nydas 19:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nydas, thanks for your message about the Rev. It's funny how these things work sometimes, but when I arrived at the Jock Tamson's Bairns AfD page, what stood out for me was all the great research you had done, flagging up the Rev in the process ... an article crying out to be created. As you say, all's well that ends well, and another jigsaw piece is placed. There's plenty more material in there to be exploited such as the link to curling, and the Jock Tamson's Bairns article needs to be expanded with more information on the source, the link to the Rev and cross references. Keep up the good work. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nydas, just saw your "All's well that ends well" thoughts on Cactus Man's page and wanted to agree. It's amazing how these AfD discussions can lead to more research and general sharpening up of people's thoughts on "messy" topics. If I ever have the courage to nominate something for the AfD page, I'll have to remember it's worth doing whether or not people agree with me. And the article on JT is indeed a bonus. --HJMG 08:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nydas, long story, see here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

---

Good work! --Guinnog 19:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I re-read it, so I thought I'd give it a go. The number of plot points and supporting characters is... formidable. --Nydas 19:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And even more good work! I changed the link away from SNP; I don't think that was alleged in the book! --Guinnog 17:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanderhyde says "This was in the 1950s, an offshoot of the National Party." - I suppose this might be open to interpretation. In Mortal Causes, however, it is distinctly described as a splinter group of the SNP in chapter 10. --Nydas 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I do stand corrected; although the SNP of the 50s was a lot different from todays one I think! If it's referenced as you say in the book, I have no problem with you reinserting it. Actually, SoS has a lot more links with Ulster Loyalists, doesn't it? Or am I getting my books mixed up? --Guinnog 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem odd that a group of extreme Scottish nationalists would have links with Loyalists. After rereading both books, however, it's my opinion that SaS wanted to create a 'Greater Scotland' including Ulster - Dalriada. Although this is far from verifiable and certainly won't go into the articles.--Nydas 19:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Spoilers end here.

---

I see you've decided to start being rude. OK, your choice. It'll be fun. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the dispute, see Talk:Scottish people ('The extreme south-east'). --Nydas 14:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those who do not want to check, I did not see any rudeness there from Nydas. Twilight Realm 15:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your coment was struck through as It added no value to the discussion and did not answer any direct question. This Is not a place to try and be funny It Is a serious debate about a page not a comic store.--Lucy-marie 14:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators don't own their deletion discussions. It's as simple as that.--Nydas 14:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming to own the deletions just to keep the crap off the page and maintian a professional tone to the discussions.--Lucy-marie 14:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reporting your behaviour to an admin. It is completely unacceptable to delete comments you don't like. --Nydas 15:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for your comments at the talk page for Personal computer game. I feel confident that I can deal with all of the issue that you raised, with the exception of the shift from MS DOS to Windows in the nineties, since I've been a Mac user all my life (and was only six or seven at the time).

Would you be able to add some information on the shift to the article? If you can at least put some skeleton information in place, I'd be able to fill it out later - but I'm too inexperienced to work with nothing.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved some information from the "Operating System" section on DOS incompatbilities to the history, but it's now just a very basic note. Would you be able to expand this into something more meaningful? Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 22:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this article which you nominated for deletion following a reasonable objection raised by the primary author. However I have relisted it at AFD in an attempt to reach a consensus. You may like to give your opinion. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 11:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, getting right to business: The Metroidvania article.

I've realized, with your own proddings and that of others, that the article did indeed have a lot of OR. While I could argue that many of the things I'd written were indeed true and accurate, in my haste to defend the article I'd forgotten that Wikipedia doesn't necessarily document those things which are true, but those things which are verifiable. While no doubt I could draw from a thousand different sources to eventually cobble together the reputable opinion to support my writing I do realize now that it was 'my' writing.

As such, I've mercilessly trimmed the article. I think it's actually at about one third of the size.

If you've got the time and wouldn't mind, could you possibly go over the article and give me some insight into possible improvements I could make? I would like to see it improve but I also recognize that my job is not to do the research, but to chronicle the research of others.

Thanks, Lankybugger 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Talk:Metroidvania.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI ... I expect Blufawn's deletion of the AfD discussion for this article is related to the unnecessary resurrection of the conversation on my talk page. Too bad this user cannot even discern who writes what, and complains to the one who asked a question, rather than the one who offered an explanation. Ugh! I pasted the entire mess on their talk page attempting to clarify what happened. Thanks for listening, and for restoring the AfD discussion. Regards, Keesiewonder 17:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I'll keep the AfD on my watchlist, in case Blufawn tries to blank it again.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Well, I now see that "someone" has managed to get an administrator to delete the AfD discussion. I have placed this on David.Monniaux's talk page. Keesiewonder 12:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI ... I feel the AfD discussion for this topic should be restored. The topic and the article will more than likely come up again, and we will need the previous AfD discussion as a reference. Much of the nastyness, in my opinion, has come from Blufawn or their IP 80.223.126.199 1) being a new user unfamiliar with the wiki world and 2) a user who is highly emotional (and not necessarily rational) about this rare breed of dog. Yesterday I received inappropriate comments from Blufawn on my talk page about how I should remove idiotic comments that were there. Little did they realize at the time that what they were complaining about was not written by me. Anyway, please restore the AfD text. Thanks for your consideration. Keesiewonder 12:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

04:20, December 17, 2006 David.Monniaux (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamaskan Dog" (protests on m:OTRS about nasty comments)

OK thanks for leaving a reason why you tagged Fenrir it helps alot now let me explain. The charcheritics (no clue how to spell that) are givin the game (do you have the game?) and affect the game, EX: the third engine decreases the chance of stalls, a very key element to a great dogfighter, and allows VTOL (Verrical Takeoffs and Landings), and makes you faster, another key element to a dogfighter. Those aren't missions they are staments given in the game. So if you would be so kind as to get rid of the tag, thankyou. Ask questions on my talk page please. Thank you and sorry for the spelling mistakes.Sam ov the blue sand 01:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..totally failing to live up to WP:RS and WP:NEO..

Unrelated note, but the use of these quasi-acronyms is bad juju. Lots of people do it, but it's still bad. If you take the extra few second to write something out (using the piped shortcut) then it's less exclusionary, and neophytes are more able to participate in discusions. Even old hands may not be aware of what it is you're pointing to, and if you spell it out than it's often not even necesary to click the link to see what you're saying. This page probably says it better than I do. - brenneman 10:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've expressed an opinion in the deletion discussion of this article. I've recently suggested a compromise in hopes of improving the article while keeping both sides happy, and would appreciate if you could revisit the issue. Thanks. --Wafulz 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nydas, I saw you had contributed to the list of top hat wearers on the Top hat page some time ago, so I think you might be interested in a move to delete a similar list (List of bow tie wearers). That list could be combined with the Bow tie article, but I'm arguing that the list should stay as is. If you have an interest in whether or not that list should stay, please visit the deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers) and throw your two cents in. Noroton 21:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed!Noroton 21:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! I have tried to get an answer from the admin who deleted this whether this article even should have been recreated since it recently went through an AfD. i.e. the difference between recreating the article and a deletion review. I am tempted to nominate it for AfD ... or contact a second admim ... What are your thoughts? Neither you nor I are getting through to Blufawn. Ugh! Keesiewonder ^talk 22:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Keesiewonder ^talk 22:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably won't do too much harm to let the article stand for a little while, to let more editors have their say. Some of them might be more tactful that me. The most likely outcome is a second AfD, and that will take a week in any case.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding subject page, I noticed you edited best-selling authors and appreciate that you left a comment. I added that entire section down to the Coupland illustrations about 9 months ago. I feel credible authors are the best way to convey a point to an article, and in fact, this org insists on it. Although there is some variation with definition, some like Foot and Yankelovich, are renowned for their research in this area. Ledboots 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent feedback. I went through and made most of the changes that you suggested... I worked on the captions, but I could use your help on them. I'm not sure if my revisions there really take the captions to the next level. I hope that with my changes that you can support the article.Balloonman 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely misread one of your criticisms on this article--- it makes much more sense now... but I also responded to your question about the US subculture part--- it essentially boils down to this: To make the article global would be too broad a topic on a subject where there is no literature outside of the U.S. Since no credible research has been done, it is easier to explicitly state that the article deals with US brats...Balloonman 06:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nydas,

I have created an outline for webcomic notability guidelines, something I want to create and try to establish with together with other editors to help the debates over a large number of webcomic AfD's going on lately.

As I have seen you in the AfD debate over Dueling Analogs, I thought you might be interested in helping on this project.

Thanks for your time and happy editting!
Cheers

JackSparrow Ninja 21:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the David FAC. Do you have any opinions on the suggestion that the Davidian Revolution section should be cut? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the FAC, cut it a bit, but cut the military/feudal stuff more.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nydas: Thanks for pointing out the problems on The Trampformers article. I've tried to re-write it more neutrally and to verify the statements made (also to justify its existence!). We're new to Wikipedia so just getting used to the spec. Any further advice would be appreciated. Hope it's a bit better now! Cheers...Pete aka Lord Cutglass

The best advice I can give is to not act too surprised if it gets deleted. Unsigned bands are rarely notable. Also, the 'objective of this article' isn't really appropriate; see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Nydas, understood. I've just added a 'References' section to try to prove the information sources. Hopefully I've done this right but if you have time I'd appreciate your advice and / or editing help with the referencing; for example I'm not sure if a citation template is required? I've had a read of 'avoid self-references' as you suggested and got rid of 'Objective of this Article' (changed it to 'Summary' and attempted to outline notability without self-referencing the article.) Thanks for the quick feedback and the clear advice.Lord Cutglass

There's still some self-reference in the article. Also try reducing the repetition of dates etc in the references section.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nydas. OK, (I think) I've got rid of that extra self-referencing paragraph I missed before and reduced the References section so there's only one entry per date. It reads much better when it's pared down I can see that now. I had a bit of trouble working out what's required for the image 'fair use rationale', if you get a chance I'd appreciate if you could please check it's ok or suggest/edit what's wrong. Cheers Lord Cutglass 10:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nydas, I thought I'd try and catch you in the rosy midst of your post-Barnstar glow! I'd also agree you've done a great job of highlighting all the inane bollox in The Trampformers. Thanks for your patience with my general Wiki-incompetence. Any chance now the detritus has been suitable expunged/knocked into some kinda reasonable shape you might please consider removing the referencing and notability templates linked/transcluded to the article? I've done me very best to do what you say! Cheers Lord Cutglass 07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one owns articles or any part of them on Wikipedia, so if you think that the templates should go, you can remove them.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, Nydas. I'm beginning to see how it works now! I've raised these issues on the article's talk page. So I'll wait for a while to see if there's any feedback. Cheers Lord Cutglass 10:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		In deleting vast swaths of crap from the boss article, you have officially made the internet suck less. This is a Good Thing. Thus, I award you the Editor's Barnstar in the hopes of convincing you to do it again if necessary. Happy deletionating =) ♠PMC♠ 09:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woo hoo, my first barnstar! Many thanks :) --Nydas^(Talk) 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you'd like to see that article deleted. I am "All Male Action" and it is not true that I am a banned user. I was simply required to change my username because a user "172" thought it was obscene or something. User 172 also put the "Sockpuppet" thing on my userpage there unilaterally. It was never proven that I was a sockpuppet of anyone, and I'm not. Look on the userpage there. It says "Your username has been blocked indefinitely because it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information). You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username. Wikipedia:Username provides guidance on selecting an appropriate username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account." So you see I'm not a banned user. It's just that username that was banned. Then user 172 put a tag up claiming I was a sockpuppet of an "RJII" which is simply a lie. In regards to the article, I just moved that material out of the classical liberalism article because it was making it too long and messy. No one objected at all and I put a request up for objections before I did it. The name of the article is the same name as the section that was removed. If you don't like "Key thinkers" then I guess change it simply to "Thinkers.." Simply False 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doubtful; new users are seldom familiar enough with Wikipedia to add elaborate references, complete with a misleading edit summary. However, it is true that being created by a banned user isn't a good reason to delete an article. I'll remove the prod, but possibly list it on AfD later.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write any of that article. I simply moved the section over to create the article. I didn't even write any of the material in that section when it existed in the classical liberalism article. Why are you calling the edit summary for the edit you referenced in the classical liberalism article misleading? All it was was organizing the sentences better. I simply moving one sentence before another without even changing the content. I do know how how to put references in though and have put in "elaborate references." It's very simple. Monkey see, monkey do. Simply False 18:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you get the article deleted it will be recreated again in time because people will start listing classical liberals and describing their ideas and it will make the classical liberalism article too long and will have to be moved again. I don't understand why you would want it deleted. Simply False 18:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I misread the changes page. My apologies. As for wanting to delete the article, we already have articles on all the thinkers, and trying to tie limp descriptions of them together under the bitterly contested grouping of 'classical liberal' strikes me as totally unencyclopedic.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Atmosphere was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

AzaBot 01:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a note to say that whilst you and I disagree on the validity of the JFNP source, I am sure we are both trying to produce a good article. I'm pretty sure that you will hold to your position as I will to mine. See you around, doubtless. LessHeard vanU 12:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could use some help here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian-American War--Lee1863 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I tend to think that there may be good reasons to avoid general speculation in an encyclopedia. My 'weak keep' in the Sino-American war AfD has only becomer weaker since then.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the keep vote. Why would you define Skyblazer as a "weak flop?" It may have been a fairly obscure game but the reviews in the gamefaqs link were generally positive. Besides the complete textual makeover I need to deal with how saw I got flagged for no copyright on the picture--I asked for permission from the website I got it from and they said yes, though. I'll get to that once I deal with everything else I need to do in real life. --Thermal0xidizer

It's not a bad game, but as far as I know, it never sold a great deal. Like the rest of Sony's 16-bit stuff, really.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I happened to notice this edit. Fixing dead links is a good thing, but deleting them is generally not the best solution. Please see What to do when a reference link "goes dead" for more on this. I looked a bit and found the same page (at the same site) at a different link and restored the sentence with the updated link. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, given our discussion of figures in ethnic group articles I thought you might like to comment here. Talk:English_people#Request_for_comment. Cheers. Alun 10:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed your concerns, fixing the lead. However, you were wrong about the pharmacology, as it was mentioned in the Scholarly achievements section.--PericlesofAthens 09:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added more prose about Shen's pharmacology in the middle paragraph. Check it out.--PericlesofAthens 10:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion.--PericlesofAthens 10:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nydas, thank you once again for reviewing the article on Shen Kuo for FAC. I have reorganized the Scholarly achievements section according to your requests and suggestions. It looks much better now, have a look and feel free to comment.--PericlesofAthens 00:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just replied to your recent comment in Shen Kuo, have a look when you are able to.--PericlesofAthens 15:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Nydas, although the article is now temporarily not a FAC, I will nominate it again in the very near future. I have gotten rid of the quotes in the article, as you requested, and converted some of the information from the quotes to prose instead. Can you have a look and leave a comment on the discussion page? Thanks.--PericlesofAthens 01:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nydas, I'd like you to check out the article once more. I have alerted several other people about the Shen Kuo article; wiki members that I've dealt with in the past for getting articles to GA or FA status. However, since you were one of the few committed to providing objections and criticisms to the article, I feel that it's natural to have you voice new concerns about the improved state of the article. Thanks.--PericlesofAthens 13:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on the talk page. I totally disagree with your stance. I would kindly request a response on mine or the article's talk page about this. Porterjoh 22:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the 87-IP from the spoiler discussion. I was blocked again, this time for initiating a vandalism report against an admin who suppressed my comments on WP:ANI: [1], [2], [3] (Oh, and he changed the discussion too: [4])

This whole thing is either:

1. completely ok; good for me, I got finally rid of my Wikipedia addiction! Keep it up!
2. completely not ok; well, someone should do something. I certainly don't feel like heading back into the fight right now.

I'm thoroughly troubled by all this. I'll mention this on the admin's noticeboard, for all the good it is likely to do.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put your comments back in the 'other discussion' so there is no justification for removing them.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the new verbiage on WP:ETHNIC. Ling.Nut 18:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On June 7, 2007, a fact from the article Squander Bug, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for you hard work Nydas.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been talk about the coordination and co-operation of the anti-spoiler side. That may be an exaggeration, but it's painfully clear that we can shout into the woods all we want without getting anywhere without laid-out goals and viable alternatives to the present spoiler policy, not just criticisms of it, however justified they may be. I'm open to suggestions, and feel free to reply to any that other people make on my talk page.

In the meantime, here's a symbol. Please put it on your user page or keep it on your talk page; if we get it on enough pages, it might just count for something. Please remove it if you don't want to show it. And if you've got a better picture, be my guest and use it. --Kizor 16:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes This user believes that spoiler tags are a valuable service and do not censor information.

My suggestion would be to make the guideline something akin to WP:ENGVAR, stressing that no particular style is correct, with the following exceptions:

1. Recently released works of fiction should always have spoiler tags if it will not contravene any core policy or WP:LEAD (in practice works of fiction with a plot twist that merits spoiling in the lead are rare). Recently released means anything in the last five years. Re-releases, i.e. games on the Wii Virtual Console should count towards this. Parts of a series should take the most recent release as the baseline.

2. Works of fiction that are three hundred years old, poems, nursery rhymes, fairy tales, folklore, video games/cartoon shorts with no real plot and any non-fiction should not have spoiler tags.

3. Any other article about fiction can either have or not have spoiler tags, depending on local consensus and the relevant wikiprojects. In practice, this will mean a return to spoiler warnings.

I'd also remind users that not everyone knows the ending to Harry Potter, Ender's Game and other stuff Wikipedians tend to like.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to work fast, and set up a 'project page' or something so we can document the abuses of Gerard and Sideaway etc, in a clear, easy to understand form. We should also seperate their behaviour from the spoiler issue itself - make this about the way they bludgeoned wikipedia into a non-tagged state and their unilateral replacement of the policy. Names, dates, actions ... we need clear data. Kargath64 07:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if my recent edits to Controversy over the Harry Potter series might have changed your opinion a bit. Thanks for your time. Serendipodous 11:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you mentioned Doctor Who over here, and comparing it to Bionicle in this particular situation. Though I'm a Doctor Who fan, I haven't been paying attention to the Wikipedia pages for it. Would you mind telling me what's going on there and why the two are similar right now? ElectricTurahk 18:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're both science fantasy franchises. The only 'allowed' spoiler on Wikipedia is on the most recent Doctor Who episode. The anti-spoiler admins like Doctor Who but not Bionicle, so this colours their view of what a 'compelling reason' is. There's nothing in 'compelling reason' which says it has to be consistent.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that's what this is about? Personal taste? If that's the case, then we aren't the ones who are wrong when it comes to spoilers. -- -- Gravitan 18:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were never in the wrong. Take a look at the mailing list archives for May to see the genesis of the anti-spoiler campaign.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary stated "debate these things on the talk page first". Honestly, would it do any good at all, considering the state of the talk page? *rolls eyes*

Oh, and hi. Kuronue 00:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You never know, the anti-spoiler brigade might heed their own advice.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you don't know me, but I've seen your arguments on Wikipedia:Spoiler's talk page and thought you might be able to help me out. An article I helped reach featured status, Halo: Combat Evolved, has recently come under fire by what you aptly call the "anti-spoiler brigade". The discussion is completely one-sided on the talk page, due to their nature of ganging up on single editors to push a "consensus" through. Whether you support the spoiler tags or not, it would be nice to have an opinion from someone other than an anti-spoiler "brigadier". Thanks, JimmyBlackwing 06:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease your edit warring on the guideline. 'Nuff said. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"(Revert Nydas's two edits. First one because it's just flatly wrong, second one because it's an important clarification in practice.)"

"(re-removed Phil's personal views and 'loophole' closure)"

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Spoiler&diff=143674906&oldid=143629532
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Spoiler&diff=143675717&oldid=143674906
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Spoiler&diff=143709772&oldid=143675717
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Spoiler&diff=143744882&oldid=143709772

I've recently been busy, and I dropped out of the fight about spoilers. You may not remember me, but I wrote a post called Yet Another Complaint. I know that you are one of the most active advocates for spoiler warnings, at least in the talk page. I'm back, and I think I am up to some more arguing, but I don't know what to do. Is there anything more effective than just writing on the talk page, where everything you write is forgotten in a few days? Or is that what we need to do--flood the talk page with logical arguments, so that not one anti-spoiler-warning advocate gets away with saying that spoiler warnings are bad? I am looking to you and Kizor for guidance, if you can provide it. Twilight Realm 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check Talk: Halo: Combat Evolved, as an example of the guideline being used in practice. It's a long, bitter discussion, with some uninvolved editors chiming in. There was also a mediation and a rejected request for arbitration.

Logical arguments on spoiler talk is an OK strategy; it's certainly more effective than taking it to article talk pages as the anti-spoiler brigade often demand, where they have a decided advantage due to their admin powers and the biased wording of the guideline. You're right that we need to consider other measures, however. I'll try the new wider attention tags.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that maybe we pro-warning people should get organized, instead of just randomly chipping in on the talk page. The spoiler tag gives a list of who's put it on their talk page, which may get us started. The way I see it, people keep joining in and dropping out of the argument all the time, and we'll just be stuck forever arguing the same things to all the new arrivals on the anti-warning side. It seems to me that the talk page just isn't working. It's too much to read, so it's incomprehensible to all but the most dedicated people. Additionally, it's not very dense in terms of good arguments. You have to read through a lot of useless stuff to get to the well-thought-out posts. I think we need some kind of info-dense summary of the argument. The pro/con list isn't quite enough, because it doesn't allow for rebuttals--for example, that Wikipedia doesn't have to be just like Britannica. What are your thoughts? Twilight Realm 17:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should focus on getting the vague, anti-spoiler wording removed from the guideline; stuff like 'should be used sparingly'. The real problem is the way the anti-spoiler brigade asserts ownership over every single spoiler tag, and we should remove the worst of the wording that supports them in this.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up about spoiler-usage. I'm going to stay Swiss from now on. StevePrutz 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied here. —AldeBaer (c) 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied again. —AldeBaer (c) 13:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I reverted here. In my opinion, it is very important to inform particularly new users of alternative places if they prefer to write from in-universe perspective. —AldeBaer (c) 13:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They won't need to know that fansites are independent and that fanwikis are not affiliated with Wikimedia.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid many don't know about alternative, fan-maintained wikis to begin with. —AldeBaer (c) 14:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying they're independent (sometimes they're not), fan-maintained (sometimes they're not) or not run by Wikimedia won't help. There is a list later in the guideline anyway.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just had the same thought. Let's link to that section then, I still believe there should be some pointer up in the in-universe section. —AldeBaer (c) 15:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I noticed your edits and wanted to let you know I think they're improving the guideline. I added a link to the Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles section and adjusted the link to Original research to WP:OR. —AldeBaer (c) 11:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the article Battle of the Pelennor Fields and the syntax of {{Campaignbox War of the Ring}} to exclude any extra lines.

Also, I adjusted {{Infobox fictional conflict}} to not use header bars for the Combatants, Commanders, Strength and Casualties sections, as all of those are subsections within the Fictional information section. I didn't go to great lenghts however, ideally there would be an alternatively coloured subsection header bar, which could be defined at {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}}.

However, I still do generally not approve of using infoboxes like that. I very much agree with what Brian suggested at WT:WAF: infoboxes in fiction articles "should include information such as what book or movie the battle appears in, who wrote the storyline in which it is featured, and maybe that's about it". —AldeBaer (c) 10:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With help from WP:BUNCH, I also managed to fix the bunched up edit links next to the templates in the article. —AldeBaer (c) 10:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the infoboxes being dubious (it's virtually all OR), but this is much better than the previous situation, which was entirely in-universe. Good work getting rid of the blank lines.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the infobox is much better with the the explicit title "Fictional information", just thought I'd throw in my general opinion, nevermind. —AldeBaer (c) 12:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, your comments are out of line. Accusing a group of people of racism is a cheap shot. You want respect? Earn it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are not out of line. I have restored them, do not remove them again.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They get removed if they are not on point or are specifically designed to be disruptive. AS your comments are disruptive, they were removed. They had nothing to do with the conversation. For someone trying very hard not to get banned, you seem to be working counter to that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They had everything to do with the conversation. Could you explain why making a simple, relevant comparison is semi-racist and disruptive? I did not design them to be disruptive, which is obvious from my other comments.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They quite simply did not. As the comparison was racist and not on point with the topic - the film article - it was disruptive, and designed to inspire debate on a topic of your choosing, not the topic focus. Perhaps you are unable to see that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explained how the comparison was racist, or how it was not on the topic. I assure that I had no intention of starting a debate on the topic of my choosing, whatever that is, so please stop assuming bad faith.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will explain the obvious once, and not again. You first suggested that the writers of the article were racists by removing or downplaying commentary about Iranian anti-sentiment about the film by comparing it incorrectly to the Last Temptation of Christ and the Jewish criticism. Your specifically suggested that were it Jewish sentiment, we would have given it more play than we supposedly gave Iranian (read: Muslim) criticism. Then, you comment on the preferential treatment given Jewish concerns by the English Wikipedia. I took offense at being called a racist, having my fellow contributors called racists and having the English-language Wikipedia considered racist. I certainly hope that is a clear enough explanationa s to why you used up all your good faith with me by replacing your comments on an FAC page instead of taking them someplace else. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that suggesting an article lacks a worldwide view is somehow an accusation of racism. If that's true, you must find Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countering systemic bias completely racist. There is a difference between The Passion of the Christ and The Last Temptation of Christ, please stop confusing the two films.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could explain why the talk page is being singled out for aggressive archiving, it would be helpful.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's aggressive about such archiving? It's a long page which sees a fairly heavy level of activity; as such, clearing away threads which no longer serve the discussion makes for a neater read. And automating the process saves a job for anyone. Why should this be a problem? The rate at which the threads are moved can be adjusted. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't explained why this talk page is being singled out (there are thousands of longer ones). As I have said, one user has already complained that their discussion was lost, and quite frankly that should be enough.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't edit or involve myself in every page on Wikipedia. But I do know what seems reasonable for this one. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's reasonable. The default is no archiving bot, and the activity on this talk page is not very high compared to others. Valid discussion is being chucked in the archiving dustbin.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is an archive a bin? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion placed there is discarded for all intents and purposes. A half-empty talk page also indirectly supports the 'there is no significant resistance' line.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. We keep archives of finished discussions so that they can be consulted when needed; one does not consult a dustbin. And the current rate of discussion suggests there's little likelihood of a half-empty discussion page in the immediate future. Should it come to pass that the rate slows down, the bot can be switched off. There is no actual problem here. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly anyone 'consults' archives, if any serious consulting needs to be done, then diffs are used. Non-standard, controversial archiving procedures are not justified by a fairly standard rate of discussion. I don't know what a slowed down rate looks like to you, could you elaborate?--Nydas^(Talk) 09:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Slowed down" means "not as fast". Hope this helps. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are arbitary measures. Who says what's fast and what's slow?--Nydas^(Talk) 10:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's simple enough: consensus can decide it. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for abnormal archiving procedures - four users have complained and three support it. It should not be used. You still haven't explained why this talk page is being singled out.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singled out? You make it sound as if it's being victimised. I've presented reasons in favour of some kind of archiving. Your main counter seems to be to say that other pages aren't being archived in precisely this fashion, as if there need be one standard across the entire encyclopaedia. Now, if consensus genuinely goes against automatic archiving, then so be it. But it is inevitable that some kind of archiving will be done — and I trust you'll have overcome your automatic reverting tendencies by then. Good day. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 11:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to archiving, that is a strawman. I am opposed to archiving where there is no need for it, where it serves one side's argument that 'no one is complaining'. You haven't provided any strong reasons; 'neatness' and 'easier' are weak justifications for someone's discussion being cut short. Consensus does not have to 'go against' non-standard archiving practices, there needs to be a consensus for such measures. The bot's page specifically says this.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand now. It's that you feel it's a conspiracy to weaken one side's case. As if either side has demonstrated it's incapable of going over the same ground, again and again. Ok, then, humour me: when, precisely, do you think a discussion thread can be deemed "over"? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 12:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't explained why a person complaining about their discussion being cut short should be overruled in favour of anti-consensus, non-standard archiving procedures. Obviously there needs to be archiving, but the talk page is not long by Wikipedia's standards and these is no reason to apply arbitary rules and self-invented policies in place of the normal archiving routine.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again: when, precisely, do you think a discussion thread can be deemed "over"? How long need it be preserved on a main discussion page? Bot or not, this is of interest to the discussion. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no precise cut-off time, it depends on the length and intensity of the dicussion. But a talk page which is neither long nor busy should not have archiving bots, especially if people have been complaining about them. If there is a flurry of discussion, then it should be preserved for as long as possible, rather than being fragmented. You still haven't explained why non-standard measures (including page blanking) are needed on this talk page.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd made it clear a bot could be adjusted or switched off if the page was in danger of dwindling to nought? Not that there's any danger of that. And the point you're missing is that a bot won't fragment discussion in the manner you describe. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear. Comments have been made about page blanking being a desirable outcome, and you have suggested that stopping arbitary bot usage requires 'genuine' consensus. Would this be the '80% in favour' or 'silent majority' kinds of consensus?--Nydas^(Talk) 15:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear? Then re-read. Read, digest, understand, take the time to consider. Think. And then get back to me. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of pretending I can't understand your feeble arguments, read the discussion itself, and address the points raised by Milo, Parsifal, Girolama and Melodia. Or just tell them they don't understand.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: in spite of the awesome blanking bot of doom, the talk page has increased from 89,601 bytes (when I had to deal with your edit-warring) to 137,887 bytes. In case you have difficulty with arithmetic, that's more than half again — not really the mark of a page in danger of becoming "half-empty". Which just goes to show that panicking about such things is really not worth it. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 05:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistically, it is inevitable that even a busy page will experience quiet times, resulting in a gutted talk page or pointless busy-work deactivating the bot. I suggest that you address the points raised in the main discussion rather than insulting me.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do revert a talk page archiving edit, please revert both the edit to the page and the edit to the archive. This is especially important if you are right and the discussions that you unarchive are still alive: these threads will appear to already exist in the archive, but will be different in the archive and the live page. This will be confusing to anyone trying to understand the archives (or archive the page) later. So please do the reverts carefully and completely or not at all. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment in the Match Point talk page (which I'd link to, but I'm newbie enough I'm not sure how.) I had suspected there was a group of people who were adamant against using spoilers, and your comment and link to the Wikipedia:Spoiler talk page confirmed it. Clockster 03:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose is to stop wasting people's time. I can't say I know the express motivations of Tony, or Phil, or Medodia, or whoever. However, my purpose in directing people to the archives, where almost every argument and counter-argument has been raised, is in everyone's interest. Do you enjoy articulating the same points over and over? It's really annoying to have a new "editor of the week" thing where the same questions get asked. "Plot doesn't necessarily indicate a spoiler" - we went over that months ago. Milo keeps on arguing over semantics of "warnings" and "notices" and how it's really like the TOC- questions which starting heading into nearly philosophical ground and which have no satisfactory answers. Call it trying to prevent discussion if you wish; I'm simply trying to prevent pointless and repetitive debate. Directing newcomers to the page to archives is not a "burn". David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth going over the same ground, yes. We might see a proper argument against spoiler tags develop.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently preparing an instructive page on "writing about one's favourite topic" in my sandbox. I haven't come very far, but based on your useful edits to the WP:WAF rewrite, I'd like to invite you to give me notes, suggestions, or any kind of criticism at any time. I'm not sure where I'm currently going with this, whether it's going to end up as an essay, or a supplementary guideline, but I think giving good-faithed advice to the many who first join Wikipedia to write about their favourite topic (who didn't?) is a worthwile enterprise. —AldeBaer 12:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea, although recent experiences have left me rather cynical about fiction on Wikipedia. Certain fictional franchises seem to have a carte blanche for dodgy, fancruft-laden articles. For example, Spoo, an article about a fictional food from Babylon 5, has had numerous admins weighing in to keep it featured, despite the article's many flaws.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nydas, I'd appreciate any input you could provide here with regard to this. I don't think this change has consensus (at least not with me). Instead of reverting, I commented there so that we can establish consensus on this. I'm currently making the round to "canvass" for some input and since I value your opinion, I decided to notify you alongside several other more or less regular contributors to WT:WAF. — [ aldebaer⁠] 23:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, this is just an FYI. WRT your comment here, there is an article which does have actual photographic content: Autofellatio. In fact, it used to have two photographs, but discussion leant towards not needing quite so much graphic content when one photograph would suffice.

Don't ask me how I know this. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 21:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it's only survived due to the relative obscurity of the practice. It'll be replaced with a picture from a Greek urn eventually.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last days, User:G.A.S and me have been working on a careful rewording of the intro, which we are now jointly proposing here. Since you've been recently active on WT:WAF, I think the proposal may be of interest to you and we both would appreciate your input. Also, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, please forgive the timesaving templated wording. — aldebaer⁠ 20:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your concerns regarding the proposed rewording of the intro. Also, I think the threshold criterion you mentioned for in-universe (making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the fiction) is very succinct and I added that to the in-universe section, so you may want to have a look at it.[5] — aldebaer⁠ 12:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor changes have been applied to the proposal. It seems that the majority is for the change, which of course isn't the last word anyway. Since you were the user with the most decided objections, I'd ask you to review the current version and give your basic aye or nay to instating it. With regard to anti- in-universe perspective as the basic thrust: I agree, but that really won't go away, it may just be introduced a tad more gently and less in-your-face. — dorf⁠, was: aldebaer 17:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin for a very wierd reason deleted my RfD - apparently I can't restore it. Can you achieve this? Albatross2147 13:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's wise. Admins can have short fuses about stuff like that. Try starting a featured article review instead. That won't appear on the main page, but will give plenty of space to discuss the problems with the article.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

someone raised the issue of this article being an advert on the 20 sept 2006, why does no one do anything about it? John joskins 17:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's an organisation like any other. It's easier for the elites to pretend the problem doesn't exist than confront it.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to have this egregious bit of puffery deleted have been stymied at every point latterly by an Admin. Would you please support the request for the AdD reinstatement at her page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fang_Aili#Ernest_Emerson_Deletion Thanks Albatross2147 03:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a featured article review at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ernest Emerson. Hopefully that will sort things out.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Emerson has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know how "spoiler tags [would] aid functionality and accessibility" as stated on your page. Please reply on my talk page so I received the message. Learnedo 09:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, though I must said that your response was filled with rhetoric and persuasive elements, and while you possess ability, I was looking for a more explanatory, objective reply so I can understand rather than be persuaded.

With respect to accessibility, I suppose this partly explains it: "Spoiler warnings help people find information they want, or avoid information they don't want."

In terms of functionality, I don't see how spoiler tags would provide it besides the basic point that it would provide an extra function. Learnedo 09:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also have a "spoiler tags are a valuable service and do not censor information." How do spoiler tags help prevent censorship of information? Learnedo 09:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you weren't aware, there is a major discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, and specifically relating to citing sources at Talk:Million Dollar Baby.
Incidentally Girolamo is there. I'm anticipating problems related to his making wild strawman charges about imaginary positions, previously due to some seeming coincidence with his weekend state of mind. He seemed normal during the week. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 22:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opposition was based on the lack of screenshots, which you have now resolved. Does this change your position regarding the FAC? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an image to illustrate the protagonist's in-game appearance for both games. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were very helpful in this discussion on the topic of weeding out advertising-like language in articles. I was wondering if you would please also assist in this discussion on a similar topic. Thanks! SharkD (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the issue you brought up regarding the policing and enforcement of the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction). --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just added a not to your comment on the debate you started "No Sex please, we are Wikipedians." Your comment was....

And yet articles like missionary position are censored. Wouldn't one reasonably assume that it would have a photo as well?--Nydas^(Talk) 17:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at that articles history, I can't see where a "censorship" issue over an image has been raised? May be I am being slow here, but a direct example of what you see as bias or censorship on a specific article is normally better enabling for others to see your point. Hope this helps us to see your thoughts. Best Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be on some kind of crusade wiht edits like this [6] and the comment above. I suggest you tone down the rhetoric, it is really not likely to improve matters. Thanks, 07:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only re-iterating what has been repeatedly stated by the anti-spoiler people. Phil Sandifer has stated that 'everybody sane' supports the removal of spoiler warnings, Tony Sidaway has stated that people who appreciate spoiler warnings are halfwits who have 'demons', Marc Shepherd thinks that spoiler warnings are encourage a 'Wild West' mentality and so on.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [7]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the deletion debate on the warcruft list? Hiding T 16:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft characters and a month later Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft characters (2nd nomination). Note that the arguments used apply to all the Pokemon lists as well; no sources, not a game guide, etc.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You are aware that in the second debate nobody argued to keep and the consensus was that a fresh start was needed. Have you made a fresh start on a new article as yet? Hiding T 12:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have the time or inclination to create a list to match unknown criteria. I suspect it would never be 'good enough'.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point me then to reliable sources I can use in an attempt to write the article? Hiding T 13:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some Warcraft art books and novels. These are apparently enough for List of Halo characters. You can also 'scrape' reviews.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Scrape? Hiding T 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's where you harvest every review of every warcraft game looking for small paragraphs that talk about the characters.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on A.K.DGG (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alyosha Karamazov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently made comments about this article on its talk page. ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. JMcC (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've selected this article, so it should appear on the main page later if no one else objects; however, please note for future submissions that you should submit the article on the date it was created (or expanded), rather than when it was finished; see the Suggestions page for more details. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edinburgh Phrenological Society, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Transistasis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transistasis (2nd nomination). Thank you. (I saw you tagged it as a hoax - that was what led me to look into it. I'm not sure it's a hoax, but it's certainly an unsupported neologism.) Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that you amended the reference to WP:UNDUE ino WP:WAF with this edit. This principle is currently under discussion at WT:WAF and I would be grateful for your comments about its introduction and subsequent removal. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Tescodotcom.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nydas. I had no idea that article had been there for five years! (aka "Sigmund Freud meets Walt Disney", haha) I wonder have you been able to determine where or whom this test was devised? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Blacky.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nthep (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Shrapnel Games has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NCORP. Company lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Nearly all articles from independent websites are actually press releases.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The1337gamer (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]