User talk:Fourohfour/Archive 10 Apr 2006

This is an archived comments page. Do not reply here. If you wish to raise any issues discussed here with me, please cut-and-paste the appropriate section (including only relevant sections) to my "proper" talk page as appropriate.

CSYS

Hey there, your welcome. Glad someone else is putting in the time and effort to tidy things up. At this rate the Scotland articles will be excellent! Davidkinnen 14:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cereals

Hi. A few months ago there was a vote to delete an individual cereal article. Since i think your latest contributions (Weetabix Minis, Fruit 'n Fibre) are nice, but the topic is not encyclopedic, i have listed them on WP:AFD. Feel free to comment on the Voting pages. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. It is difficult to decide what stays and what goes, and I am myself often not sure. In any case, the articles were well written and linked, and it was good work, even though at least the Weetabix one is vanity. I hope this does not dampen your enthusiasm, since your contributions in general are good and wanted at Wikipedia. Best wishes and Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 22:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It seems the current tendency of the vote is to keep the articles. In this case my first guess was too conservative, sorry for causing trouble. If the vote survives, feel free to create more cereal articles, and I will be perfectly fine with it. Even for long time Wikipedians it is sometimes difficult to estimate what stays and what goes. As for the TV/VCR/DVD combos, these are a group of products, not just a single brand, and my feeling is that they should stay. I wish you all the best and happy editing! -- Chris 73 Talk 09:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. BTW, since we're discussing AfDs, and you have more experience than me, what's the etiquette on 'drastic' consolidation/redirection of articles? (i.e. where a number of articles which *someone* feels should be combined get merged into a single one, and the others are redirected to this). Should it be voted upon?

Fourohfour 22:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to check the talk page. If there is a significant discussion going on, you may want to bring up the topic there first. Otherwise, Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages and just change it. Pretty much everything can be made undone if necessary. The only two things to take care of: (1) Try to keep most of the information, i.e. no missing subsections in the final combination. (2) If you move an article, use the "Page Move" function, rather than a cut/copy operation. By using "Page Move" you also move the edit history. If teh page move is not yet available to you (a safety feature for very new users to prevent page move vandalism, which puts a high load on the servers), list it on Wikipedia:Requested moves, and it will be moved in time. Otherwise go ahead and move/merge. If others disagree, it can always be discussed on the various talk pages. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 14:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks. Fourohfour 15:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

404, please do not add IP addresses to the RU sections of Vandalism_in_progress, they have their own cats. :)

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I know... I'd already spotted the mistake myself, but only after someone had replied to the message. By the way, I know full well that anonymous vandals have their own cats; one of them clawed my eyes out when I reverted his edits. Fourohfour 00:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weetabix

The boxes on the shelves of Albertson's in Seattle and Kroger in West Virginia say 'organic.' Perhaps they only sell the organic kind here, those stores only order organic, or our standard for 'organic' is lower than it is in the UK. I will double check, though. Youngamerican 20:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to what Weetabix cereals are mass marketed stateside. Apparently, only the organic variety is sold here. Youngamerican 22:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. I've altered the phrasing slightly to make this clearer. Fourohfour 00:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policies for IP vandalism

No, I hear you. Our blocking policies for IP vandalism are extremely, er, loose, mostly because of the potential for collateral damage and the general feeling that going too far could scare away a potential new contributor. Since it's impossible to know whether it's the same person doing vandalizing edits, it's important to make sure that during that person's vandalism session they be warned a proper amount of times. It seems like sort of a high threshold, I know, but that's just the way things usually get done. Thanks, though, for your diligence! · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splot

I looked at a few of his edits. The acronym pages seem pretty innocuous, I don't particularly think they're anything to be alarmed at. The overzealous wikifiation is a bit annoying though. Have you tried talking to him about it? There's no need to be linking everything in a sentence really. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got a reply from Splot and they seem mostly okay. I've already dealt with a user that insisted on adding messed up garbage to acronym disambigs, continued to do it and did not reply to messages on his talk page, so I was probably more sensitive and less patient about it this time Fourohfour 13:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take a look at the page to see what I thought should be done with it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: The Bucketheads

Hey, thanks for pointing out the redirect... it actually should have pointed to Kenny 'Dope' Gonzales instead of Masters At Work. I changed the redirect and the Gonzales page contains The Bucketheads information. -- eo 14:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.121.9.98

Well, you're right. It's a fairly clear case of linkspamming. Doesn't appear to have ever contributed anything else but these linkspamming edits. The IP resolves to Roadrunner, which uses both static and dynamic IPs. Since this person always seems to come in through this IP, I'd say it's probably static. This gives me a little more leeway. If the IP were dynamic, blocking it for more than 24 hours would be problematic because of the potential for collateral damage. I still can't really block it for terribly long because I can't be certain that it's static. What I'll do is block it for a week; hopefully that'll be long enough to get his attention and make him quit. Let me know if it continues. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

He's only made two edits in the past two days, I don't think there's any real need for a block at this point. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:65.141.155.43

I read the comment you left on Master Jay's talk page, but I think there are times where it's okay to jump to "test2" - there are other users who do this. For example, take a look at Videosmusica. --HappyCamper 14:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(See original discussion for my response) Fourohfour 14:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pieing

I have to ask, Why do you want to knock off my harmless "List of people who have been pied" category?

"Pieing" is a fascinating new social phenomenon and a novel means of protest. "Piers" report that their pieing protests garner more media attention than sit-ins, picket lines, and other more traditional kinds of protest. This list is the only one of its kind on the Internet. As such, I think it's worthy of being in an online encyclopedia. Griot 16:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Griot[reply]

CLOSE

ITV Nightscreen and 4-Tel On View have their own pages (and I am not even counting the test card articles), and CLOSE is the same service on BBC Two, it deserves a page. Denial of evidence is really not helpful in this dispute. I urge you to please stop redirecting the page. Arbiteroftruth 03:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:CLOSE for clear evidence which I have already provided on this subject. You, on the other hand, have provided not a shred of evidence for your case. Until you do, the page will be reverted.

I have also contributed to your own talk page, as I believe your call for a "lock" (however silly it is) displays very bad faith. It attempts to paint me as the party who has not provided evidence, when in fact the opposite is the case; it is you who has not given an ounce of supporting evidence for your position. Fourohfour 11:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to redirect, then redirect. I will no longer provide resistence to this issue. It is my hope that we can put this ugly episode behind us and work together on future issues, shall we have the opportunity to do so again. Arbiteroftruth 04:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is regrettable that you chose to make accusations against me and demand a "lock" on the page, but then deleted my response to this (archived here) from your talk page.

Whilst deleting comments in this manner may be considered vandalism by some (but not all) Wikipedians, I have no interest in continuing a dispute over a relatively minor matter.

Fourohfour 10:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

day pages

i appreciate your work in removing lesser important events from day pages!

cheers, Kingturtle 17:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Fourohfour 17:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

It's not vandalism when it's asked for ;-) Search 4 Lancer 11:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a clever move on Pathoschild's part. It means his user page can never be vandalised, then... Fourohfour 13:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that comment you left me was just wrong. Search 4 Lancer

14:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No offence intended; it was meant (I had hoped obviously) tongue-in-cheek. I'm sorry if it didn't come across that way. Fourohfour 14:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, that's my all-time favourite comment so far. Thanks for that. XD // Pathoschild 17:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

High school abbreviations

If you don't want RHS to mention Rickards High School, you should be consistent and remove the high schools from CHS, MHS, etc. Have fun; there shouldn't be more than 26. —Keenan Pepper 18:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do; thanks for pointing that out. Fourohfour 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

notability christmas album

Evidently, it is notable. See here.

If you have any questions, let me know, or reply on the project talk page. BTW, I'm terribly sorry about posting on the user page! Gflores ^Talk 22:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear which specific criteria you are basing notability on. Can you please tell me which criteria you think verify the claim for notability? Fourohfour 11:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm not the best person to explain this. I do know that this issue has been discussed many times before. Your best bet is to post a comment on the above talk pages or the WP:Albums. Sorry I couldn't much. :) Gflores ^Talk 02:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albinism

Well albinism is not a phoney article it's a medical condition, I find no reason why to take it out of 'Al'. And no I'm not some mad scientist,lol.--King of the Dancehall 22:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental Meditation

In case you did not have a watch on my Talk page, I just replied to your last comment. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Lumiere (talk • contribs)

Thanks for participating in the TM page.

I am begging you, please, please, please, hang around. Lumiere and I are very polarized, a third party, even in our disucssions would be greatly appreciated by me.

Thanks. Sethie 17:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to get bogged down in the minutae of this discussion; I came across the article whilst browsing and noticed some blatant pushing-of-views and tag removal. I don't care which side they were on, this is not acceptable. The page is on my watchlist, and if I see anything like this going on again, I'll revert it. If I can help out, I will, but I can't promise to resolve every point. Fourohfour 18:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do actually agree with Sethie that we need more help. I replied to your last comments in my talk page. I am sorry that you interpreted my revert as vandalism. It was not. The revert was an improvement, but I admit that it was not as good as working from the new version. The idea was that I wanted a discussion in the talk page before introducing something new, but I did not do vandalism to achieve that goal. Amrit 19:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

Sorry for the delay, I thought I'd already responded. When an administrator blocks an IP address, there's an autoblock feature that detects registered users operating from that address and blocks them as well. Ideally, this allows registered users to edit while preventing new sockpuppets of a blocked user from editing; in practice, the autoblock is rather glitchy, and IP blocks tend to affect most or all registered users from that address. On a related note, transparent proxies are blocked on detection until they can be demonstrated to be closed. // Pathoschild 17:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the answer. Do you mean it blocks "newly" registered users (the rest of what you said makes more sense in that context). Fourohfour 17:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it should do, but instead it seems to block all registered users. // Pathoschild 23:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jelly

It's a start at least. Try asking some of the Wikipedian Cooks to review it. One of them has to know something about jellies. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 08:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cassette

Oops, I did those at 3 in the morning. Sorry, next time I'll be more careful. Gflores ^Talk 04:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AD

As far as the whole disambiguation thing goes... whoops, my bad. Thanks for noticing it. Matt Yeager 22:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)^[reply]

User name

Hi - just to reply to your note of Jan 26 about the Nestlé entry; I created an account because that seemed the decent thing to do and with every intention of contributing more. I seemed to have lost the habit, partly due to a month-long absence somewhere warm, and partly due to the fact that I don't really see how lengthening things does anyone any good; the whole article needs an edit, but that doesn't look like it will happen. I have certainly not been posting anything 'anonymously'.PZ1800 17:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article probably *does* need editing, although it's still better than some other anally-retentive, semi-relevant-factoid-loaded corporation articles, such as Pizza Hut.

BTW, the edit I had in mind was this one; the IP's equivalent name is "232.8.3.213.fix.bluewin.ch" (a Swiss address), and the style struck me as being similar to yours.

With respect, it did seem strange that your PZ1800 account was only ever used to say "I'm not anonymous", but it didn't mean anything for sure. In the light of what you said, my best guess is that the anonymous contributor may have been one of your colleagues, or it could just be some guy/girl editing from Switzerland. Who knows....

Fourohfour 18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why this was rejected

I recently eddited the PC World (magazine) page. I added a mention of the Wikipedia in that publication. It was rejected because it was self-referential. I read Wikipedia:Itself and that didn't answer any of my questions. Is there a proper way to add information like this? Zoobtoob 05:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Duplicate of comment posted to above user's talk page):-

Perhaps I should have given you the link to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references instead. Basically, there was nothing wrong with the manner in which you added the information to the article; your style was fine. The problem was with the information itself. Wikipedia isn't meant to be *about* Wikipedia (except where the subject is relevant in a neutral third-party type way).

Let me put it another way; had this been a different encyclopedia, would the information have been important enough to be included on its own merits? Definitely not, unless *lots* of other info had been included.

Fourohfour 10:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassette

Actually, I agree completely with your comments concerning cassette and cartridge. --Deville (Talk) 01:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHS

You are suppressing pertinent information. You are a vandal. It just so happens that schools in Canada – and being based in Scotland I guess you wouldn't know this – are very commonly referred to by their initials. What's your problem anyway? Just because you aren't familiar with something doesn't mean it's unimportant.

I call 'em as I see 'em. 72.56.118.28 15:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued at user's talk page, where I started it. Fourohfour 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joytech

Hi Fourohfour, generally if you want to make a comment about an article that is proposed for deletion (WP:PROD), you should leave the comment on the article's talk page, not the main page. If you are concerned that no one will see it that way, you can remove the prod tag and nominate the article for WP:AfD, and leave your comments on the AfD page, or just remove the prod tag and see what the original nominator will do. (In this case, me.) It's bad form to replace the prod tag so the original prodder will have to leave the article alone or nominate it for AfD. In this specific case, I don't see a need for a redirect since there are no other articles that link to Joytech, however I would not object to a merge if that was the consensus. (Someone searching for Joytech will find the Take Two article.) Otherwise I don't think Joytech by itself passes any of the notability tests to have its own listing. Thatcher131 22:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see; it's a new process. I'd wondered why the article hadn't been AfDed.

Note that a redirect would bypass the necessity for either process though, leaving it up to any objectors to (trivially) revert the update if they strongly objected. I think a merge is fine; it's clearly not worth its own article at present, but the company is still worth noting as a subsidiary of Take Two.

Fourohfour 11:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAB

re: FAB...I wanted to make a distinction between the different categories of RTD...standard drinks such as the category featuring alcoholic lemonade (where we get the term from...'alcopops' normally being perceived as a negative team) and the more upscale PPS term which people like Diagio like to market their new brand extensions as.

P.S. FYI Bar show - Manchester Trade show March 27- 28 2006

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotham City (single)

Please revisit this AfD regarding additional nominations for deletion. Thank you. -- Krash (Talk) 14:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Railway station articles

Fourohfour wrote:

Hi,

I notice that you're creating large numbers of near-identical articles for relatively minor railway stations. Are these necessary? They appear doomed to perma-stub status, which indicates that they should not be separate articles in the first place.

I'd like your opinion before I mass-AfD them....

Fourohfour 14:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern that these articles may never be expanded beyond stub size, and I concede that you have a point. However, I do believe that the articles you refer to are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

For a start, the "perma-stub" status of which you speak may be likely, but is by no means inevitable. As you may or may not be aware, Wikipedia's millionth article, Jordanhill railway station, started off as exactly this sort of article. Once announced as the millionth article, it naturally recieved an unusual amount of attention, and has now been expanded beyond all recognition; it even has its own image gallery. This was of course a one-off process,

Exactly! (^_^) There's a small chance of that happening to any given article, but it's not really a good justification.

however, every station article of its type has the potential to grow to a similar size – given sufficient editorial attention. The fact that an article is unlikely to recieve such attention in the foreseeable future is not in itself a convincing argument for deletion.

It's a fairly convincing argument for a merge and redirect.

Additionally, there are already many stub articles of this sort in Wikipedia – I am simply continuing where others have left off. Many of these articles have been around for months, and nobody has objected to them so far. If you believe that they are unnecessary, you will also need to make your case to the dozens of other contributors who have put effort into creating these articles. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents appears to have no objection to this kind of article, and they are at least as notable as many of the villages, people and bands that are constantly recieving stub articles of their own, and which are, by precedent, notable and not candidates for deletion.

'Precedent' sounds like quite a good reason to AfD stuff now, rather than later. Also, perhaps there were no objections because there were *so many* minor articles hidden away. It may be argued that this makes them harmless; OTOH, it also risks scattering useful information in many different sources, and duplication of information across articles.

Finally, remember that over 35% of Wikipedia articles are stubs, even listing all the different types takes forever; with over a million articles our aim is not just to write long, detailed articles (though of course that should be encouraged), but to provide as much accurate, useful and neutral information as possible. There is no reason why these articles are any less useful than any of the other 350,000 stubs.

I've nothing against stubs; I'm quite happy to create them myself.

It's all down to potential and the likelihood for creating a proper standalone article. If the subject is non-notable in its own right and/or has little to be said about it individually, it's perhaps better that it belongs to a parent article. In many cases, I feel this way because I *am* interested in the subject, and consider that such snippets of information are more valuable when presented together in context, rather than isolated as pointless article fragments.

Note also that these articles have been categorized and interlinked using templates, it is clear which stations are on which lines, there is a centralised alphabetical list, and so on.

Hope this is a convincing argument -- Gurch 15:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not personally convinced that this is in the nature of an encyclopedia; sure, they've been linked together with templates, and so on, but does this mean that each station warrants a separate *encyclopedic* article, or is this just a side-effect of Wikipedia being (mis?-) used to create a navigation device for a collection of stations?

Fair enough, they're (supposedly) notable, but do the notability criteria discuss size? Did the discussions which gave rise to them encompass all sizes of railway station? Fourohfour 15:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK – I accept your opinion on the matter. I notice you have similar resignations about the Now That's What I Call Music series (personally, I'm with you on that one). I can see what you're getting at; in response to your comments above, I would like to also mention the fact that Wikipedia is not paper, and that while it is undeniably an encyclopedia, it differs from every paper-based encyclopedia in that we do not have to worry (within reason) about how much space we are filling with obscure articles. Unfortunately the concept of 'obscurity' is difficult to define.

Anyway, I suggest that the articles stay for now, and that if you wish to reduce the amount of obscure nonsense in Wikipedia there are far more worthless articles out there (I bet there's a few on Special:Newpages, for a start). Gah, perhaps I should go back to spellchecking, it seems to be about the only non-controversial thing I can do.

When I've created a few more of these stubs (yes, I know, I feel guilty now

), I will see what I can do to include more useful information in them – such as freuqency of service, and external links to timetables, which people might actually be looking for, and would therefore make the articles more useful -- Gurch 16:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DaveRel comments

Hi. You placed some {{test}} templates on this users's mainpage not their talk page...which doesn't give them the orange "you have new messages" bar. I've moved them to their talk page after previously warning them about creating those articles. I have deleted the articles under WP:CSD criteria A1 - articles with little or no context, but you are advised that "hoax" isn't a valid CSD. You also hadn't signed your warnings to them with ~~~~, which helps in establishing timestamps. Heh ok I'm done lecturing. Thanks for keeping an eye out for vandals. Its just that following process saves administrators time in stopping vandals. :) --Syrthiss 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the placement of messages on the user page; @#$^$^$^#$!!!!!!!!

Foul-up on my part, plain and simple. Yep, I probably should have signed; it was an oversight, as I was just waiting for the guy to make the next edit so I could warn and block the cretin as soon as possible. Fourohfour 17:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh not a problem. :) --Syrthiss 17:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right

It got caught in the midst of all IP blocking, I'm changing the block, thanks for notifying me. --O bli (Talk)^? 00:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem (^_^) Fourohfour 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tesco

Tescopoly - sorry about that - genuine mistake. --OscarTheCat ^talk 16:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, maybe I should have made it clearer in my edit summary that I didn't necessarily think this was deliberate. Fourohfour 18:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for making my article about Jensen Loudspeakers all stubby. You did that pretty fast, too! Like within 5 minutes from when I made the article? Just a quick question, do you have any Jensen speakers? NIRVANA2764 22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just type "Jensen Speakers" into Wikipedia every two minutes to see if someone's created an article about them. I'm way to stupid to do that myself, and no, I don't own any Jensen speakers, but I'm planning on collecting enough of my drool to sell and buy one. Fourohfour 22:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern times

It's getting very late here, so I'm not thinking straight - but how about having modern times redirect to modern times (disambiguation), which can mention the article modern world? We don't need admin powers for that, and that would preserve all the history in one place. I think disambiguation is the best solution in this case. Graham talk 15:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(My reply at user's talk page). Fourohfour 15:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm happy now - the histories are still disjointed, but anyone who really wants to know should be able to figure out what happened. Sorry about the inconvenience last night - I should look at page histories more carefully! Graham talk 09:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Fi

cash machine can u help me with the page it has some problems. —This unsigned comment was added by Bobo6balde66 (talk • contribs).

What's the problem?

Also, one thing I've just realised is that Cash Machine and cash machine are different articles (because the capitalisation- i.e. upper and lower case letters- is different).

Anyway, I'll probably have to go soon, but if you leave your message here, I'll try to help out.

Fourohfour 16:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroids

When I moved Asteroids to Asteroids (game), I did correct the redirect to point to asteroid. User:Larsinio inexplicably reverted the redirect to point to the game. -Sean Curtin 07:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly enough about the title itself to discuss this further, but since you seem keen to have "asteroids" redirect to the "asteroid" article, we now have a problem:-

Larsinio's change wasn't entirely inexplicable; it meant that all the existing links for the game went where they intended to go. When doing page moves like this, it's good form to change the existing links (using "what links here").

So we either have two choices; make asteroids redirect to asteroids (game) again, or someone can fix the links. Since you feel that the former option isn't satisfactory, I'd appreciate it if you could at least at least check the links ("WHAT LINKS HERE"), determine which ones were intended for the game, and alter them to point to Asteroids (game) where appropriate.

Fourohfour 15:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My (partial) apologies; it looks like you put at least some effort where your mouth was, as I notice you've made a lot (but not all) of these fixes. Fourohfour 16:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAL EP?

... is not standardised. It is a standard in NTSC though. E300 tapes are quite common here, I use nothing else. Anorak2 14:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know where you live, but I live in the UK, and I've only seen E300 tapes once, well over ten years ago. I'd hardly say this is "quite common". Where do you buy yours? Fourohfour 14:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it bothers you that PAL EP is nonstandard, feel free to change it, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't simply revert as the original phrasing was slightly hard to understand IMHO. Fourohfour 16:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know my wording was complicated. I wanted to pack so many facts in that one sentence.

I'm in Germany, E300 tapes have been commonplace here for many years, e.g. by Sony, TDK, BASF & others. I prefer them because they save shelf space. Anorak2 08:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds okay to me. I'd have bought them myself for the same reasons if they were available here, but they aren't. Assumed it was something to do with reliability of the thinner tape; anyway, this is beside the point. If they're common in Germany, we can leave the "5 hour" bit in. Fourohfour 12:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Blatant vandal

Hi, I rarely use this template now, usually only in cases of multiple vandalism or offensive language or slander. I prefer to use {{verror2}} for deliberate false info, or {{test2}} for nonsense. Regards Arniep 13:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#1's

Well, no one really visits that page anyway. Plus, if they're like me they'll see the no create page and will not try to create it. Also, the CD will be released less than 3 weeks away! I know everything about it. I created the Now #1's. Plus, all that's been released is the track listings and its released date. Please! Let me create it. I looooove making CD pages. I've created Into the Rush, Now That's What I Call Music!, Number One's, and That's So Raven Too!. Tcatron565 6:06pm standard central time 3/27/06

(Reply at user's own page where conversation was started) Fourohfour 09:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BJAODN

I took it from my old user page. It's something I wrote while trying to get Liberty Dollar deleted. Brian G. Crawford 23:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reply at user's talk page) Fourohfour 00:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now! 21

Well, with only 1 week away before the CD will be released, I think I should create it on April 3. 1 day before release. Please! Tcatron565 6:29pm c 3/28/06

There's no point asking my permission, I don't run this place, and I wasn't the one who voted in favour of deletion anyway. It might survive, it might be deleted by someone on principle. Who knows? Fourohfour 09:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cease and desist

You seem to have confused me for someone who cares what you think. It was an honest mistake, I'm sure. I really don't know what kind of response you were trying to get from me by copying and pasting policy and talking about me in the third person on my talk page. If you don't like an edit I've made, just revert it and keep your comments to yourself. I don't want to see you on my talk page again. Brian G. Crawford 17:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at user's page [4]. I'd normally put it here (see above), but if someone wants to behave like a jerk, let it go on the record at *their* talk page. Fourohfour 18:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning

I'm telling you a second time to keep your comments to me and discussions with other editors off my talk page. Brian G. Crawford 18:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah? Well keep the personal attacks and sarcasm out of your warnings. If you make comments such as

You seem to have confused me for someone who cares what you think. It was an honest mistake, I'm sure,

don't expect to deny me the equal right of responding in the same manner and via the same medium.

The fact that you weaselled this comment into what you now present as an official warning cuts no ice with me.

In the spirit of your warning, let me state that if I see *any* such comments here in future (beyond the necessary minimum), I will treat this as de facto permission to respond in the same manner, either here or on your talk page.

Fourohfour 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruud Programming

I noticed that you tagged the page Ruud Progamming for speedy deletion with the reason "Currently, less than 17 Google hits, at least 6 of which are direct/indirect references to the Wikipedia article(s). Web address given is no longer in use (although http://ruudprogramming.atspace.com/ with no Alexa rank *is* in use and claims *2* hits(!!!!!)). This is about as clear a WP:WEB non-runner as they come". However, "Currently, less than 17 Google hits, at least 6 of which are direct/indirect references to the Wikipedia article(s). Web address given is no longer in use (although http://ruudprogramming.atspace.com/ with no Alexa rank *is* in use and claims *2* hits(!!!!!)). This is about as clear a WP:WEB non-runner as they come" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use one of our other deletion processes, proposed deletion or articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tags

OK, Image:Chiclet keyboard medium.png needs to use a standard image tag, as listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, not something you've tinkered with after transcluding. Otherwise it's going to keep showing up in the toolserver list of untagged images [5], and with the number of enforcer-bots running around these days trying to stay on top of bad uploads, anything without a standard tag runs a significant risk of not being recognized as a variant and deleted anyway. Your choice. Stan 23:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't threaten me. Wikipedia is not (or should not be) run for the benefit of malfunctioning bots. Automated processes incorrectly deleting such images without the intervention of the owner should not be operating.

Wikipedia only states that material has to be uploaded under the GFDL and even links to version 1.2. Personally, I don't give a toss which of the existing versions of the GFDL are used; I have no problem with them. Fourohfour 12:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Professionals

Thanks for sorting out the spelling mistake. I du wish I cud spel propurly. (Pally01 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I still had to look the correct spelling up though :) Fourohfour 11:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair ZX81

You're quite right - removing the wikilink from the body of the article for spark printer was incorrect. I have reinstated the link accordingly. Hope the edits were ok otherwise. --Oscarthecat 16:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; actually, at a first glance, I had my reservations about some of the link removals, but looking at it a second time, I'd realised that most of them were justified. Fourohfour 17:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Punch

Removing unsourced material is not vandalism. Removing the entire article would not be vandalism, frankly. Please try to remain civil even when you disagree with people. Just zis Guy you know? 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear which comment you are referring to now, and I don't intend proceeding on the basis of a guess. Please either quote or link directly to my comment in question (assuming that it *is* my comment) so I can figure what you're referring to. Fourohfour 10:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Characterising a genuine content dispute as vandalism, as Linnwood did, is incivil. I'm just reminding everyone - including Crawford - to remain calm. Just zis Guy you know? 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I don't see anywhere else where you posted this particular comment (definitely not on Brian or Linnwood's page). Since I was both civil, and indeed actually *discouraged* the use of the word vandalism (at least without qualification) on the Donkey Punch talk page, it's even more out of place here.

In future can you please make clear where such comments don't apply to specific actions of the recipient. It's annoying enough with Brian making groundless accusations that I spoke on his behalf (FWIW I didn't, but since he refuses to provide a link, I don't know what comments of mine- if any- he sees in this way).

Fourohfour 12:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]