Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:06, 16 April 2005

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

Archive: 2005 March 29 2005 April 7

• A community is like a ship: every one ought to be prepared to take the helm.
• The most crying need in the humbler ranks of life is that they should be allowed some part in the direction of public affairs. That is what will develop their faculties and intelligence and self-respect.
• You should never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and truth.

(An Enemy of the People)

• A lie, turned topsy-turvy, can be prinked and tinselled out, decked in plumage new and fine, till none knows its lean old carcass.

(Peer Gynt)

• I hold that man is in the right who is most closely in league with the future.

  

(letter to Georg Brandes)

Following the custom of other, wiser Wikipedians, I now reply on this page to Talk on this page. Please avoid fragmented discussions.

Template:01

Hi there. Template:01 was deleted as per consensus at WP:TFD. I noticed on an arbitration page that it was used as evidence. I therefore moved it to your user: namespace (you said that you would happily move it, so I figured it would be okay). If you have any problems with this, I apologize for touching your user page, and I'll move it to my own user subpage and delete it from yours. Thanks for your time. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did it with Template:Mockup too. Again, feel free to move it to my own user subpage if you don't want it there. -Frazzydee|✍ 11:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I promised to move or delete all those silly templates myself after the prescribed time had elapsed; I'm sorry I failed to do so after I huffed off. You did exactly right. — Xiongtalk 02:23, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, that's perfectly fine, you don't have to say sorry :-) -Frazzydee|✍ 18:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moving your "how to make complex illustrations" guide

Hi, I do really like your how-to guide, but I also do think that there's a plausible case to be made that it belongs in e.g. Wikibooks. Mind, I'm not saying I think I've concluded that it's more appropriate there than in Misplaced Pages:, it might well be better suited where it is. However, I don't think it's a slam-dunk that it ought to stay there. So I don't think Netoholic's out to harass you - he just has strong ideas on how things ought to be organized, and acts of them. Anyway, do chill out, and take a Wikibreak if the Wikistress is getting to you. This project is supposed to be fun, not aggravation... Noel (talk) 20:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Link here: Misplaced Pages:How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop

I agree this belongs in wikibooks. There are other guides already, though. Misplaced Pages:Graphics_tutorials Maybe they should all go there and we can link to a book instead of the guides. - Omegatron 20:46, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

1. The tutorial with the absurdly long name is not my personal property, and if anybody can figure out how to move the entire project interwiki without damage, perhaps he should do so. It's a much more complex proposition than it appears at first blush. I suggest the bold knight think of a better name first.

2. Netoholic is out to harass me, personally; anyone who he identifies as his "enemy", specifically; and this project as a whole, in general. He spawns imitators of his style, hiding in the gray area of barely acceptable, constantly confrontational manipulation. If I saw him in my neighborhood on the street, I swear police presence would be required. I don't know whether they would haul him off, me, or both -- but we would simply not exist together, not on the same block, not on the same cellblock. We all have strong opinions about how things should be done; people like him, who get their rocks off imposing their will on others, should be eliminated.

3. This project should not be "fun" for anyone. It should not be hell either, but it should be taken seriously, as a holy mission to uphold a standard of truth -- factual reportage -- and a collegial community in which such can be generated. Too many users think this is a playground. Adults doing serious work need a sense of humor, but not to go so far as to saw the legs off chairs.

— Xiongtalk 02:23, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Holy mission

Holy mission?? Not everyone shares your viewpoint. - Omegatron 03:53, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not; and that's the problem. Too many users are here for shits and giggles. We need more users who approach the project of compiling a store of human knowledge with the respect it demands; and we need an alteration in the power structure to exclude those who view it as an MMORPG. — Xiongtalk 05:51, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry. It's not your personal project, and people will approach it however they please. You're free to start your own fork, and exclude as many people as you want from it (which, I presume, would be everyone but yourself). Your attitude is likely to get you excluded, anyway, from the sound of it... - Omegatron 05:59, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

It's not my personal project. Is it the personal playground of orcs, trolls, and common vandals? By virtue of its license, it is the common property of Man, and should be respected as such. People who approach it as a game should be given a pail of sand and a shovel, and be set down by the low tide line. One of our few unalterable principles is "This is an encyclopedia." Game is nowhere mentioned. Have fun, but fun is not the object.

I have asked to be excluded; I have asked repeatedly. I'm more than willing to jump off the cliff, just so long as I can chain even one such evil influence to my wrist when I go over. I have nothing to lose -- if this project goes balls-up, I have no interest in playing with the kiddies. Please do not say everything is okay; it is not. You have to be awfully close to the project for many months, and be equipped with rose-colored glasses, too, not to see that Something is desperately wrong. This is not the ordinary rough-and-tumble of edit wars and faction territories; this is the whole project losing its roots. — Xiongtalk 19:44, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Stuff

Relax. The wiki will continue to turn. The matter of templates will be resolved in your favor. So says the wiki-oracle. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Show me a few heads on pikes, and I will begin to believe you. I need to see some adults around here, unafraid to take abrupt action to protect the fabric of the community against predators and carpetbaggers. Otherwise, it really doesn't matter how TfD is handled. Remember that Netoholic really does not care about the substantive issues. His payoff comes in the form of manhours pissed away dealing with his bullshit. — Xiongtalk 02:23, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Relax please. - Omegatron 03:35, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Why? — Xiongtalk 03:39, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Xiong, time on Misplaced Pages is reckoned in years. Occasionally things move quickly and happen in a mere span of months. Any apparent faster activity is illusory. The reed that bends with the wind does not break. The contributor churn period still averages six months, maybe a little more. Consider this essay:

Most editorial disputes are resolved based on tenacity. That is, the dispute is resolved in favor of the user that is most motivated, and most willing to carry the discussion forward after others have lost interest. This can be positive, and to a degree is part of the Wiki consensus editing model. Where two users are equally tenacious, the dispute becomes more a matter of scope of conflict. In many disputes it is clear to both parties which side of the dispute will be taken by most Wikipedians. Possessing this knowledge, the parties to the dispute try to minimize or maximize the level of community involvement, as benefits their case.

At this juncture, an edit war is under way, and the Wiki consensus editing model is no longer functional.

For those issues that are not resolved at the Scope of Conflict level, discussion continues with attempts to perform a Sucker Punch. Once the dispute reaches this point, consensus is unlikely to be achieved and all parties involved find the discussion aggravating. The sucker punch itself is an attempt to incite the opposing party to lose their cool and commit a breach of civility

I wrote that two years ago. Do you think it is still accurate today? Netoholic is among the latest in a long list of Misplaced Pages:Contributors that Some Other Wikipedians Find Irksome. Most are now gone. A few are rehabilitated. Others remain. But heads on pikes? Well, only the ones that commit a sufficient breach of civility, and it's not so much heads on pikes that has resulted but rather a sufficient public pillorying that they lose their motivation. That is the outcome that you want. The trouble is, to achieve it, you have to maintain self-control, because if you respond to the sucker punch, you lose, because the community does not take the long view of contributors' history, but rather evaluates contributors based on the presence or absence of any negative history. I'm exaggerating, but not much.

There's a sort of death spiral that some contributors go through where they start doing more and more outrageous things because they're fed up and don't think the system is fair and because they aren't getting the heads on pikes that they want. Don't emulate them, because it's self-destructive. Instead, relax. Log in under some other user name and add templates to the sexuality articles for a while or pursue some other area of interest.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 09:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Your points are not all bad, but I'm afraid I do not agree that all is well. I do see your point -- I might well simply ignore Netoholic's depredations, whatever they be, wait six months and revert them all. I could even archive the current state of whatever he peed on to my user space, so no matter what happened later, the original stuff would still be available to me. That would work fine against common vandals.

I could simply ignore ad hominem argument and foolish debate. Whatever change to policy a common troll managed to push through could always be fixed later. As long as policy is as plastic as the article on Barbie, there's no need to worry.

But Netoholic is neither common vandal nor common troll. He partakes of both essences, but is far more dangerous -- so I believe. He creates a category of troublesome user, which I call the orc (to continue the goth/Tolkienesque jargon). This kind of "false friend" masquerades as a legitimate user; he actually does a great deal of good and useful work, backed up with sensible argument, or at least reasonably good judgement. This makes it difficult to identify and isolate him, for one; and attracts supporters to his banner.

This might be said of any controversial community member, but what distinguishes the orc is his lack of any real commitment to the positions which he advances. Indeed, he will abandon any such position when he feels he is losing ground; he will switch sides if he can do so covertly, and champion the cause he so lately derided. His goal is not to build the project in his image, or even to manipulate details of policy so as to prefer his point of view. His goal is nothing less than the diversion of the community's attention to his battles -- wherever they may be, no matter his position.

All of us enjoy attention, but the orc demands it. He never lets go of a point while it can be made to serve him. Stalled at one level, he moves to another. His extensive cloaking means it is mechanically difficult to track his more underhanded actions; he edits fairly for a long time, with honest edit summaries -- then moves shortly to derail the opposition, and distorts the summary. It only takes one dishonest act to serve as a platform for a whole raft of superficially forthright actions, each one a little destruction -- all ultimately dishonest, as they are based on that one lie. It takes real dedication for a neutral party with no dog in the fight to sift through the "paper" trail to find out what the orc has been doing.

The result far outlasts whatever immediate destruction the orc causes. Content may be restored; debate is archived; unwise edits to policy rewritten; burned-out enemies contributors are replaced with fresh blood. All this can be undone. But there is a lasting effect, too: the atmosphere of contention itself, the contamination of the body politic, the precedents set for bad, ruthless, self-centered action. The orc destroys common sense itself, and forces a community to rely on written policy and resort to authority.

You see, in intellectual discourse, there is really no place for comments such as, "Well, that's just plain silly." There can't really be, because one man's silly is another man's wise. The mutual trust and confidence group members repose in one another is not something that can be ladled back in on top, once questioned; it is not even something that can effectively be defended. The only way to contest a silly statement, given the least bit of plausible defense, is to rebut the statement logically; and that requires great effort -- much more effort than the orc spent to make the silly statement and plausible defense at first.

There are two intellectually honest ways to rebut an assertion. The first is argument from first principles; this requires a great deal of effort in order to construct a clear path from axiom to outcome. Accurate documentation is often needed here, too. The second is resort to authority. It requires also much effort, to accurately cite relevant sources and document them so they may be checked.

Unsurprisingly, most effective arguments are based at least in part on resort to authority; it is simply beyond most people's capacity to argue entirely from first principles. Unfortunately, resort to authority is only as good as the authority itself. It is a grave and common fallacy to presume that any authority in a matter of policy is infallible, that its authors had the magical power to foresee its every application.

The orc sets in motion all this intellectual machinery with a few considered words, and without waiting for reply, moves on to do the same in another forum. Soon, the best efforts of men of goodwill are directed to rebuttal of one superficially plausible statement after another. Substantive work on the project either grinds to a halt, or is abandoned to the care of second-raters.

If responders are lacking, the mass of users follow the orc along into foolish action -- and the tenacious orc does not allow later reversals; he nails down the foolish action, bases other actions upon it, and stealthily cements it as an element of the community, presented to newly arrived users as the One Right Way. And this is the lesser of two evils.

If responders fall into the trap of debating each of the orc's actions and comments individually, granting him the same status as an honest debater, then the entire body politic becomes contaminated with such hair-splitting. The precedent is set again and again: We do not exercise good judgement; we fight out every small point. Since the energies of men of goodwill are limited, resort to authority becomes more and more commonplace, which facilitates the orc's tactics, since the fastest way to support a silly action is to point to some authority, pertinent or not.

I must emphasize that all this havoc destroys something which cannot easily be restored, and will certainly not "grow back" of its own. It is a cancer which eats away at a community's most precious resources. The orc breeds others of his kind; they see he is tolerated in his most outrageous actions, and they think they can do the same. Most of them are wrong; they will fail to maintain his cloak of superficial plausibility. But one such hellspawn is wickedness enough.

A fully-grown orc, such as Netoholic, is a great and terrible threat. He has amassed credibility among members, some of them with power. Rooting him out now will breed more ill will, involving as it does so many parties. He will return as a sock puppet, and unless we are on the alert, we will become embroiled in his games once more. He has no life outside of his life as an orc, and if our survival as a community of rational men and women is in grave jeopardy -- not merely survival as logical robots, but as a rational community exercising common sense and good judgement in some sort of rough harmony -- then he, too, is fighting for his life.

Orcs must be crushed ruthlessly, like any dire threat. They must be spanked hard and sent packing at once, before they set an example to others. They must be crushed before their cause has time to mature, while men of goodwill can still act in summary fashion; orcs delay this reckoning as long as they can, by imitating good behavior and not provoking anger until they have their suckers firmly plastered to many vital areas of the community. When orcs reveal themselves, they must be eliminated without delay, and their severed heads displayed publicly, as an object lesson to community members who might drift into that pattern of thought, word, and action.

I've offered -- begged for -- a mutual block, to be imposed on both Netoholic and myself until such time as his case in arbitration concludes. I make the offer in all sincerity, as a sign of good faith. I go farther, here and now, and offer a mutual ban, and swear I will respect it as long as he does. I will return -- as sock puppet or under my own handle, if it be granted me -- only when one of his sock puppets is outed, and even then, only if it is not summarily crushed. I admit, I think of myself rather highly at times, and I know I've done good work here, but I truly believe his individual capacity for evil is greater than my capacity for good. I would rather see the community flourish in our mutual absence. — Xiongtalk 10:52, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Down the memory hole

This comment originally appeared in Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) 10:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC). It was not only removed from the Pump, but from the Pump's history itself -- pure Orwellian censorship, and not by a common user, either.

If you think this is unacceptable, I hope you will work to preserve not only these remarks, but to discover the actor who obliterated them. — Xiongtalk 03:15, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

I don't know that this is even possible. I've never had anything to do with TfD. What is the problem you're having? - Omegatron 03:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Forget TfD. Concentrate on the obliteration of my remarks from the Pump. Obviously, a user with extraordinary powers did this. If that does not upset you, I think it ought. — Xiongtalk 03:45, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

I would be somewhat upset, but I don't necessarily believe it yet. Evidence? - Omegatron 03:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

What evidence do you seek? I'm asserting systematic obliteration not only of my remarks, but of evidence I ever made them.

Not to be paranoid, but are you truly on the side of Right in this? May I trust you with a pointer to the only scrap of evidence this Minitrue thug overlooked? I'm not insinuating; I'm asking you to declare your position, not in general, but in this specific case. Will you carry the banner? — Xiongtalk 04:07, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Not to be paranoid?? The comment is right there on the village pump right now, and no one is disappearing it. Why do you think someone is out to get you? As I said, I don't think it's possible to remove something from a page's history like that. Since the very incident is therefore unprovable either way, I don't know what to tell you...

I refuse to declare a Position. I'm not participating in any stupid wars. - Omegatron 04:59, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Is this what you are looking for? No one's touched it. You just posted it on the talk page by accident. Relax, please. - Omegatron 05:11, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

No conspiracy theories about someone removing your TFD rant -- you simply posted your comments on the wrong page. Would you mind perhaps removing your repeated insertions of this text from all those various talk pages, and post retractions? -- Netoholic @ 04:18, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

I assert that my posting to VP-policy was entirely correct. I am still unable to find in that page's history the diff you cite. How was the diff itself removed from history? And who removed the comment itself, and to where? And who dares decide what is or is not appropriate in such a forum of last resort?

I retract nothing, especially my characterization of you, Netoholic, as an evil influence on this project. Feel free to get one of your big buddies to squash me; my participation here is essentially over. Enjoy your victory. — Xiongtalk 04:29, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

You accidently posted on "Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (policy)". This history is here. -- Netoholic @ 04:41, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Ah, I am nothing but a foolish one. Now show me why you did what you did. Educate me. — Xiongtalk 10:55, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Relax

I've got to warn you, Xiong, if you carry on like a loose cannon someone is going to end up requesting dispute resolution actions against you. You can't go around making conspiratorial accusations, refusing to apologise when it is demonstrated you are wrong; calling users "evil", messing with critical templates for bizarre reasons, posting long, duplicate rants on multiple pages, etc... I think you are getting worked up over very silly things. I suggest you take some time out and relax. Try browsing WP:BJAODN, it's always good for some light relief. -- FP 05:03, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Your advice is way too little, way too late, and comes with an insufficient dose of concrete aid. If you want me to heed you, then show you are impartial, and weigh in on the side of Right in the several places in which I have been overridden roughshod. Your comments so far have been personal attacks ad hominem.

If my charge that some power-mad user dropped my comment down the memory hole is unfounded, you will note that I name no names. Who is aggrieved? Who is this big buddy? If nobody did such a thing, nobody is attacked.

More to the point, why did you, nor any fine, upstanding Wikipedian not move the item if it were misfiled? I am not convinced! It is just as easy to make me look foolish by altering history as to eliminate all reference to the complaint.

Much, much more to the point, why was a certain user allowed to do what he did to TfD and to poor {divbox}'s listing? You attack the posting of my complaint, but you do not respond to the complaint itself. You take the easy way out.

Netoholic has been in arbitration for days and continues to rampage unchecked. His actions are evil, a menace to the project. I have demonstrated this many times in many ways. I begged a user well up in the hierarchy to block both of us until his case is decided. I invite you to do the same. — Xiongtalk 05:43, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

None of my comments have been ad hominem; they have all regarded your actions, not you as a person. And I am impartial; I have no involvement with any party in this dispute - I only came across it recently when I saw your surprising proposal to delete Template:tfd. I believe you are not being at all rational, and so entering into extensive dialogue with you will be unproductive. All I want to say to you is: stop acting like a paranoid person, relax, settle down and make some constructive edits. Bye. -- FP 06:41, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

A blanket deprecation of a person's action, without any specific criticism of that action, amounts to argument ad hominem. It is the refuge of he who has few other arrows in his quiver. Again, you spatter me with your labels -- "not...rational", "paranoid" -- but you have nothing whatsoever to say about the substantive issue.

I assert that {tfd} must go, you say that's "silly", and you refuse to rebut my claim on its merits. You fail the most basic test of intellectual honesty. You cannot afford to enter into any honest dialog with me until you get a crib sheet. — Xiongtalk 08:31, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Re: Down the memory hole

Hello Xiong. I'm sorry that you felt your rights were infringed upon, but it seems to me that this was a simple case of accidentally posting your comments in the wrong place.

I understand why you would feel frustrated, but there are a few things that I don't understand about your story:

• If somebody did censor you, it would have to be a developer. They're the only ones with direct access to the database. But if it was a developer, then why aren't your comments about the censorship censored? Why wasn't your comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (policy) censored also?
• Developers have too many things to take care of to worry about your opinions on TFD. What motivation would they have for going through all the trouble to expunge the history of that edit from the database?

I'm not sure if you agree with me regarding the censorship matter, but, from my point of view, it appears that you simply posted your comments in the wrong place.

Regarding the comment itself, you speak of a "small group of regulars who work within TfD". I do a lot of the deletions on TFD. If you disagree with a decision I made, please don't hesitate to ask.

Also, you complained about somebody reverting you for removing the template from TFD. I'm not sure who did that or why, but it is possibly because admins always handle the deletion of templates, so they figured an admin better determine consensus when keeping an article too. This isn't an official rule, but it's usually observed. Yes, they probably should've left a note on the talk page, but wouldn't it be easier if you just approached them to find out why they did that rather than going through all this?

If you have any other concerns, feel free to drop me a line. -Frazzydee|✍ 16:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I struck my paranoid charge that my post had been "disappeared" from my repost to the Pump. "Just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid." So let's leave that at that.

Admins do not determine consensus, or the outcome of debate. "The small group of regulars" -- to which I belong -- do that. It is a thankless, boring task which only comes to larger notice when an action is unpopular -- doubly thankless. I've never gotten an attaboy for anything I've ever done on TfD, and I doubt many have.

Without grabbing for high ground, I see that consensus on TfD -- as actually practiced -- seems to be "overwhelming majority" of votes cast. That may be a debasement of the coin, but there it is. It doesn't take a wizard to see that a 4-3 split is pretty much not a clear consensus to do anything. Process says, "Free to go", the matter is ended. We need an admin for that? We don't even ask admins to decide to delete anything -- we just mark them for deletion, and they come around and clean up. If I know anything about the way that social groups work, most admins who do the cleanup just delete everything they see so marked, without question, bar the odd checkup to see they're not being taken for a ride. And that's the way it should be.

Did you restore {divbox} to purgatory? If not, you have nothing to apologize for -- but I say you should make it your business, as any right-thinking Wikipedian, and especially one holding power. At first, I thought it was Korath acting alone; he says Netoholic did it first, then he (Korath) "just followed along" (my quotes, not his). I named no names, since no responsible person would take action without seeing for himself who did what, when, and where. Don't ask me -- check the history yourself. It's a busy page, with plenty of diffs to sort through -- one of the reasons why fooling with the process is Just Not Done.

It really doesn't matter who. Going contrary to process, then justifying that underhanded action by way of editing the process guidelines themselves -- it's all so dirty -- filthy dirty -- I really did make up my mind to get the hell out and stay out. More fool I to return. — Xiongtalk 19:22, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2#Temporary injunction

And just because you're paranoid doesn't mean They're not out to get you. — Xiongtalk 19:59, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• Fragmented metadiscussion merged to: User:Xiong/Metahole. — Xiong熊talk 04:32, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Barnstar link

What you added is perfect. Thanks. :) – ClockworkSoul 22:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting... but first, would you mind defining exactly what you mean by "barnstar inflation"? Is that the association you make that as barnstars structurally supported otherwise unsound buildings, barnstars are being used to hold together Misplaced Pages? – ClockworkSoul 22:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar inflation

More and more barnstars awarded for less and less significant efforts

See: Medal Inflation. — Xiong熊talk 01:58, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Tutorial with absurdly long name

Very nice intro to Illustrator/Photoshop -SV|t|th 01:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; glad you like it. You could use Illustrator to get the same effects, but I use FreeHand. Does this mean I might prevail upon you to help out in some way? — Xiong熊talk 01:14, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

No, my helpfulness is limited to light praise at the moment. "Charter Convention?" Have you tried Free/Open alternatives like Inkscape?-SV|t|th 02:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charter has nothing to do with the tutorial; sorry for the confusion.

I'm looking into Inkscape. I don't run Mac OS X, but old OS 9; but I support the workup of the tutorial using free-beer and free-speech tools. At the least, they should be mentioned as alternative tools. Thanks for the link. — Xiong熊talk 05:09, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Signature

Hello, sir. I'm sorry you're stressed, but I have a small suggestion for your signature, if you care to know it. It is said that using a picture in a sig is somewhat frowned upon, of course for memory and page loading speed. Why not use this signature, replacing the picture with the same character?

Like so: Xiong熊talk

Just wondering.

ROY YOЯ 18:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, and I have been feeling guilty about it ever since I considered the matter. I resisted Unicoding the character, since some users simply don't have the ability to display it -- but that is not a good reason to load the server for such a trivial matter. Thank you for doing the grunt work, especially in matching the color. I have gone you one better, and made the character clickable, linking it to the original image, which anybody can see, no matter his platform (unless he's listening to the web). Your charitable action earns you WikiThanks. — Xiong熊talk 23:15, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear it! And I hope you can find some light in the Wikipedian community. If not, it is always possible to make some. --ROY YOЯ 03:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)