Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jc37/Archive/03: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Jc37 | Archive Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:31, 5 December 2008 editSesshomaru (talk | contribs)Rollbackers40,876 edits reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:12, 25 December 2008 edit undoJc37 (talk | contribs)Administrators48,945 edits blank archive 
(40 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User talk:Jc37/Top}}
{{User:Jc37/NavBar}}
<br clear="all" />
{{TOCright}}

== The Hat ==
=== Ah, but whose hat? ===
Re: ''(And with a quiet whoosh the hat passes the threshhold of the ring's circumference : ))''

The part about the hat made me think of ] hurling his hat in '']'' and beheading a statue with it. ] (]) 11:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

:I wonder if that would make it a ] (the odds being ], of course), rather than just a ]? Though personally I suppose one could just make an ] grab for the ] : ) - ] 12:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

=== Edit Summary ===
was classy! ''':)''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 11:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

:I suppose I'm just in a poetic mood : ) - ] 12:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

== Doczilla's RfA ==
{|
<div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: none; padding: 0px;">
<div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: none; text-align: left; border: #dadada solid 2px; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background: #006400; padding: 5px;">
<div class="NavHead" style="-moz-border-radius-topright: 10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 10px; background: none; text-align: center; padding: 2px; font-size: 160%;"><font face="trebuchet ms" color="#006400">.:] '']'' ]:.</font></div>

<!-- Note to self: Remove the line directly below to view -->
<div class="NavContent" style="background: none; display: none;">
<center><p>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| align="left"|]
| width="340"|<font size="5">'''Thanks for !voting!'''</font><br><br>
Thank you for !voting in ] which resulted in the collapse of civilization with '''92''' (94?) '''support''', '''1 oppose''', and '''1 neutral'''.<br> Blame ] and ] for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and ] who closed<br> without shouting, "No mop for you!"<p>

Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me.<br> I am deeply grateful.
| ]
----
'''Thank you for casting the ?th vote (the nom, a.k.a. co-nom with strong support even though you initiated the nomination) in my RfA. While I never was sure I wanted adminship, I was always gratified that someone wanted me for it.'''|100px]]
|}

<div class="NavHead" style="-moz-border-radius-topright: 10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 10px; background: #FFFFFF; text-align: left; padding: 2px; font-size: 100%;"><font color="#000000"> ]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ''"The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot."'' - Michael Althsuler </font></div>

{{#if: {{{1|}}}| {{User:1ne/Title{{!}}{{{1|}}}}}|}}
<span style="position:-40px;left:-180px;z-index:100"></span>
<div style="position:absolute; z-index:100; right:10px; :0px;" class="metadata" id="userGrmWnr">
{| style="background-color:#CFB53B;border: solid 2px #AA0000"
|-
|] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
| <imagemap>Image:Nuvola filesystems folder home.png|30px|Home Page
default ]
desc none</imagemap>
|<imagemap>Image:Nuvola_apps_chat.png|30px|Talk Page
default ]
desc none</imagemap>
|<imagemap>Image:Laff alert.svg|30px|Joke Alert
default
desc none</imagemap>
|<imagemap>Image:Nuvola apps 3 cookie.png|30px|Presents
default ]
desc none</imagemap></span>
|}</div>
|}</div>

== Rouge ==
:'']''
That was a tough close... Well done. Someone had to and you are a ] for deciding to do it. I expect someone will DRV you, so if someone does and I don't notice, would you please give me a nudge. ++]: ]/] 03:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:Someone actually suggested that I might want to close that one since I hadn't been involved in the discussion, and I think that person was serious. Oh, yeah, ''that'' would have been a fun way to close my first XfD. ] <sub>]</sub> 17:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:I agree, that was well thought out. Nice job. --] 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

{{barnstar|align=right|text=For a thorough, detailed closure of a tricky ], and managing to pull the consensus-needle from the haystack, I award Jc37 the original barnstar. Top work! ] (]) 20:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)}}

:What is the general view on admins wheelwarring against category deletions? This is a particularly touchy issue for many I know but the fact that a number of admins have reinserted the category on their pages to effectively recreate it seems to be an issue. DRV might be necessary to get the two discussions happening together and get a consistent view on the situation? ] (And yes, I realise that the concept is intended to be humour but it not taken that way by some or many :) ) ] 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
::See ]'s comment in the thread below. Though honestly, it "not being worth the drama" doesn't sound like a "good enough" answer for me. I think that this is something that needs to be dealt with in one way or other. - ] 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI, but the category has been restored. I have inquired on the restoring admin's talk page as to why. I would highly suggest you ''not'' re-delete the category (although extremely tempting), as to not wheel-war. An AN/I thread can be started up if I don't get a satisfactory response (i.e., any result other than redeletion). ] (]) 06:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

; Just what do you think you're doing?

As long as people refuse to depopulate the category, a ] category exists. I recreated nothing! All I did was change the font color. Time to get real.--] (]) 04:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps you should propose some policy disallowing editors to be in UCFD'd categories. Until then, you can't do much about it other than request they remove it (or remove it yourself, which is likely to cause drama). Currently there is no policy regarding either the removing or the re-adding of deleted user categories to user pages. Personally I'd advocate a bot to patrol every deleted category, and remove the category from all such userpages periodically. Nothing will stop the editors from simply re-adding the category again each time, but at least they will have to work for it. ] (]) 05:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
::There are quite a few other options/proposals as well. But I wonder: Should we allow the "possibility of drama" to prevent us from doing "]"? - ] 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::FYI, ]. While particularly motivated users will still be able to circumvent the process by adding <nowiki>{{nobots}}</nowiki> to their page, this bot would cut a significant amount of users out of such pages, and would help a lot for initial category emptying. ] (]) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Just wondering here, what would it take to get the software changed to not show categories that don't exist? Obviously a check of all wikilinks including categories has to be made to determine if the target exists when displaying any page in order to color the link blue or red, would it be so hard to not show the red ones? Then all you'd need to deal with is recreation which is <s>drama</s> speediable. --] 14:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::I had a similar idea kbd. Especially considering a recent similar, though decidedly different, discussion concerning "hidden categories". Personally, when thinking even about categories which are redlinked in mainspace, we simply have had too much disruption along those lines. I think it might be a good idea to suggest that '''''all''''' redlinked categories (when not preceeded by a colon) should not show up on a page, nor group said page in a category. One could ''still'' create a category using a coloned redlink, and once the page is created ''then'' allow the category to "appear" and "group" pages. This also adds a touch of technical knowledge requirement that maybe, just possibly, might slow down well meaning but uninformed category creators. This would be, I presume, a simple addition to the software, but make a ''world'' of difference to those who maintain category-space. - ] 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::I was thinking the same, and I thought of a possible solution to making the creation of such categories easier. When you go in to the edit window, or perhaps as a warning after you save or preview your edit, there can be some big red notice saying how the category you added doesn't currently exist, and will not show up on the page until it is created, with a link to create the category. I don't know if ] could still function if it were done like this, however, and if it did, we would still have the problem of inappropriate categories showing up there that shouldn't actually be created. Perhaps more users would simply get rid of the category from their userpage if it no longer showed up at the bottom of their page, however. ] (]) 21:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Honestly, I think "wantedcategories" should become a thing of the past. Article talk pages (and other more general discussion pages) exist for just such purposes. I don't think requiring someone to understand adding a colon, and creating a page, is establishing too high a learning curve. Categories should be created with thought, not knee-jerk impulse.
:::::::As far as your suggested notice, it might be too server intensive to have it check for categories in an edit every time. I dunno. I'd rather it just be a link to WP:CAT, which would have a more clear explanation ''in context'' of what categories ''are''. - ] 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Actually, it should be easy. Like I said above, it already checks for a category on every edit so it knows what color to make it. You can probably stop the process as well, a la if you forget to put in an edit summary ("Category does not exist, click Save Page again to save" or some such). I agree about the wantedcategories, though. --] 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:(de-dent) - I just had an idea. (I was thinking about templates which add categories when transcluding.)
:a.) When we hit "see preview", if you scroll down to the "bottom" it actually shows the categories.
:b.) When we edit a page, it shows at the "bottom" what templates are transcluded to the page.
:What if redlinked categories only show '''''then'''''? (a-after "show preview", or b- as a "list" below the template list, or "c" - both)
:That allows for page creation, but won't add them/group in them unless the page is created. - ] 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::Works for me. Now we just need a boatload of discussion, consensus, and development. My newborn will probably be in college by the time it's implemented... :) --] 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Rofl, you just want another addition to the top of this page : p
:::So how do you think it would be best to get this ball rolling? - ] 22:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

; A couple things
First, nobody bothered to notify you that your closure of Cat:Rouge Admins is on DRV, so I thought I would tell you. There is also an AN/I thread about it. Second, I was wondering if making pages like ] was standard practice. I have never seen anything like it, and personally I would have just deleted (although I don't really see the harm in it). Did you just decide that the page should be preserved and do that, or is there any policy/guideline saying to do that? ] (]) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

::Thank you for the notice. I didn't see it. Though in hindsight I probably should have waited to comment. I was surprised when I re-read what I wrote. I think I was still asleep when I wrote it. I decided not to remove the whole thing, but instead did what we've done to comments at CFD/UCFD - I removed the more problematic text. - ] 00:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I came here to ask you the same thing, since I nominated it for speedy G8 (which was declined). When I asked why it was declined, the admin noted that it had been moved. A check of the edit history revealed that it was ''you'' who moved it, not one of the members of the group flipping off the community again. What is your reasoning behind the move? ''']''' <small>]</small> 14:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

::Moving the category talk page to Misplaced Pages-space as an archive? I did that as a courtesy, since the Misplaced Pages-space page still existed. To be honest, I think it's rather rare to find a Wikipedian category with a talk page discussion, so it's not something that happens very often. (I helped with something similar for "Admins open to recall".) I hope that clarifies. - ] 00:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== How do you not pull your hair out? ==
:''See more at: ]''

Trying to help clean up over at UCFD, and I have to say, the sheer number of users who appear to be using wikipedia for nothing other than userboxes and user categories (aka WikiMySpace) is staggering. I'm beginning to think the argument "this user category fosters collaboration" is utter bullshit. When some of the members have no edits outside of their own user page, there is no collaborating going on.

And trying to figure out how the stupid category gets populated, when it seems that every user has their own version of the userbox in their userspace, and they're all wrapped in "includeonly" so I have to edit every damn user page to try and find which template feeds the category. It's enough to make me say screw this crap, I'll stick to CFD, where things are relatively normal.

How do you do it? --] 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Working {{#switch: {{{2}}}
|w=Woman's
|n=Wikipedian's
|#default=Man's
}} Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | for not going completely nuts at UCFD. ] 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
|}

:Ah, but maybe sticking with the UCFD mess at all is indicative of being nuts in the first place. ] <sub>]</sub> 05:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

: How do you not strain your muscles? It looks like you performed the ''splits'' forwards and then upside down over at ] and its subpages. Actually, I don't even want to know. Here's an aerobatic barnstar. ] –] 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


; Another barnstar
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Categorisation Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For all the hard work JC37 does regarding categories, especially in light of all the grief I give him over it, I award thee this piece of tin I just knocked up. Don't bite on it too hard. ] <small>] </small> 16:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
|}

I couldn't find a category barnstar so I made one. If you can think of a better one, feel free to modify. ] <small>] </small> 16:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


; Yet another barnstar
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Long overdue for all the fine UCFD work you have been at for years. ] (]) 01:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
|}


; When did this become barnstar central?
Seriously, though, congrats, you deserve every one of them. --] 16:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not sure, but I can't put into words how I appreciate them. (I think I tried, not very successfully, on your talk page at one point.) And thank you : ) - ] 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


; Having now had the opportunity to look at all of the user category and userbox guideline pages...
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For clarifying, organizing, and developing ] on user categories, through lots of little tweaks, some big changes, and countless comments at ], and for helping to bring practical significance to a ]. Thanks, ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
|}

== Thanks! ==
--] 23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

== 42 ==
wow, I actually didn't even know about until today. thank you very much sir! you know what they say (in case you don't its, The only thing worse then being talked about is not being talked about.~Oscar Wilde) I feel famous, I would put a dancing smiley on here if I could, in fact

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | for making me feel like I'm part of the cast of ] <small><span style="border:3px solid #004e00;padding:2px;">] ]</span></small> 02:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
|}

== Context ==
The context was actually that they make a display of greater depth, therefore affect, rather than they cause, since it is an art not a science and nothing truly is caused, but it's no big deal. ] <small>] </small> 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

:Edit summaries are too short : )
:What I meant is that they '''''a'''''ffect the perceiver. They '''''e'''''ffect (add) depth into the text.
:But as you said, it's not that important. I'm just a stickler for grammar at times : )
: Feel free to revert if you wish. - ] 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
::No, you're missing me. I knew what you meant, I'm telling you that I wasn't using the word affect in the context you took it to be used in. They affect (alter to produce) greater depth in the text. You are right that the result is an effect, but the effect is the result of artistic affect. However, I think effect is probably better as many people can miss the many meanings the word affect has. ] <small>] </small> 00:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Now you've got me second guessing myself : )
:::"alter to produce" would seem to be "to effect", not "to affect". I effect a change, and the target is affected by the change I effected. Or am I missing something?
:::Can you tell I enjoy grammar? : )
:::(As an aside, we really should start edit warring over this... Greater fame and glory awaits us at ] : ) - ] 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

:'Scuse me for butting in, but maybe this might help: "Effect" is an action verb, "Affect" is a passive verb. One can ''effect'' a change that will ''affect'' others. ''']''' <small>]</small> 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
::I presume you mean ] and ]? I thought about that, but "affect" can also be a transitive verb. - ] 01:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Sure, get all technical on me... (big grin) After I posted, I saw that you said essentially the same thing on Hiding's talk page. FWIW, "Affect" can also be a noun as in "Patient's affect was blunted". ''']''' <small>]</small> 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
::::I still think you guys are coming at this from the wrong angle. I'm talking about the way an artist affects his work, Jc37 is talking about the effect the artistic affect achieves. I don't dispute Jc's usage, I simply dispute him telling me my context is wrong because the context he is reading it as is not the context in which I am using it. The context in this instance is that the text is being affected by the artistic introduction of images, and the work is affecting greater depth. Like I say, it's maybe an arts thing. It certainly seems to be a limited affectation in this discussion. All the best, ] <small>] </small> 11:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::So. essentially it wasn't the wrong word, it was less-than-clear context? : )
:::::(Ah, the effect of being affected while being affected by the effectiveness of the effect of the affectation of the effector's effective affecting effect. Infective, no? : ) - ] 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::Are you saying I left my readers unaffected? Did I not effect understanding? Sir, I find I stand accused of either ineffectiveness or affectedness! I cannot conclude from your context which to adopt, nor which would effect to affect me more. But, lest my affectations or ineffectual qualities, be they actual effects or affectations, effect change in your affections, let me conclude: Invective?<ref>I'm British, it pains me to use American grammar, but it aids the pun.</ref> No! ] <small>] </small> 10:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Damn, you win! I think I should have said ''which would in effect affect me more''. :( ] <small>] </small> 10:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
:My brain hurts. --] 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
::I think Jc is right, we should just ream the page until it gets protected in the wrong version and end up at arb-com. Maybe we could even escalate to wheel warring. Do they have a lamest wheel war ever page yet? ] <small>] </small> 10:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, there's ], but I'm sure we could find "something" ] : ) - ] 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think parts of this (particularly Jc37's parenthetical statement above) need to be added to ]. ''']''' <small>]</small> 13:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
::::The funny thing is, someone would list it on ] and we'd edit war it off onto a new ], with the argument spiralling out as to whether changing an ''a'' to an ''e'' is a spelling error or a grammatical one. ] <small>] </small> 10:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::What are you talking about? ] already exists, why do we need to effectively create ''another'' policy page? ], after all. It's not about spelling anyway, but context. And whether we should effect an effect to affect (or at least infect) the effective context of the effected, affected text due to Hiding's attempt to effect an effective affect upon the reader through his abject subjective directive to inspect his infective invective<ref>I was thinking that this was synonymous with verse, rather than being adverse. Oh, well, it could have been worse</ref>. (Just to put it into perspective.) - ] 02:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::See, I cannot tell if you are affecting disdain in response to pain, pain caused by the effects of something you perceive me to have effected. Or whether instead it is affectation you find in my words, words which contextually differ through the effects of our grammar. A grammar, of course, which is affected, through force, by the effects of events which affected those people who in effect and through affections effected ourselves. I'm finding it hard to discern the judged effects of your words, the way they should affect me; the levels of text are miring me deep, I'm starting to weep at the adjective used to describe what you refer (with invective?) as subjective directive. Recalling this all started with your elective corrective, which I deemed selective, feeling you called me neglective, I think the effects you effected affect and effect more, and judge I was overly sensitive.<ref>In short, after all we have wrought, it all comes to naught, I am indeed caught, I retreat from my fort to say sorry, as I ought and was taught, although admitting no fault. So, an apology, of sorts, for the troubles I brought, and I hope of our affections this is not ''la mort'', but rather ''l'amour'' (to translate, I hope, towards me you are not feeling sore).</ref> ] <small>] </small> 19:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Ow ow ow! <ref>Ow!</ref> --] 19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Oh. My apology if our discussion of morphology (or acrology?) has effected an effect (or rather, effected an affected state), upon your introspective pate, which irrespective of this affectative fate, neither of us (I suspect) did expect to create; and so I would direct this unexpected created state upon your pate to abate before it's too late. But if this affliction (this affectation) does not effect its resignation from affecting your psychology, I might direct your efforts to cephalology or even to phrenology.<ref>Solutions may not always be detected when physiology is not directly effected.</ref>

::::::::Irrespective of this perspective, I regret that I may elect to dejectedly reject this suspect subject of the project, perplective and affectedly introspective of the subjective directive, and to effect a circumspective, though reflective, directive of my perspective. This effect (or affectation) is not reflective upon the affect of Hiding's interjection, but rather an effect of this subject's permutation. So with great affect (and hopefully, '''e'''ffect), ''I'' interject: Salutation! : ) - ] 13:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That was amazing. ] (]) 05:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

===Footnotes===
{{Reflist}}

== ] ==
He's still moving pages to nonsensical titles (see ]). Could you see that this doesn't happen again? He's been told to discuss such controversial moves, yet does not do so. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
:2¢...
:BBiA has received recent warnings on this: and . He deleted these from his user's talk after receiving the level 3 from Sesshomaru.
:And I've just added a level 4 due to his actions of moving Guardian in the face of someone raising objection.
:- ] (]) 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
::I've reviewed his contributions as requested, and quite a few additional talk pages. Please see his talk page for more information. - ] 04:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Asking if you could look into con't edits by BBiA. User has been unmerging or unredirecting pages without providing further rationale. In the case of ], the user has unmerged the page twice, although the page had been tag and on the notice board for 4 months with no contention. Additionally, he has unmerged ] (merged over prod) over a month ago, ] (merged over prod over a month ago, and ] (redirected over merge) over 1 month ago, all without providing rationale for his edits despite invitations in the comments. At the least, it appears to be a soft evasion of the page moving block. Any follow-up would be apprecitated. -] (]) 00:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC).
:Just 2¢ on Kleinstocks... The redirect was done within 24 hours of the article being PRODed. By all rights it should have gotten the normal 5 days first. As annoying as it is, we should be waiting until it's run 5 days from when the error was noticed (the 8th, Thursday). - ] (]) 00:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:Addendum: Vavavoom and Tutinax are in the same shape: redirected less than 24 hours after the PROD. - ] (]) 00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
::Quick question in regards to protocol. Would the redirect be considered a removal of the PROD? -] (]) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC).
:::I've always interpreted it that way, and you kill two birds with one stone; removes the PROD, and neutralizes an article with some issues that can be later corrected if correctable. ] (]) 14:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, ] keeps on undoing my adding the infoboxes for the various Defenders teams from the ] and mashing up the information on the various teams. I left a message on his talk page indicating that mashing up the information in the infoboxes is confusing and that if he had a problem with multiple infoboxes to clarify with the box the various versions. He indicates that he has ] but he should thus understand the logic of what I suggest, but he just when and undid my edit that still mashup the versions which I just undid. ] (]) 18:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

== Template:Batman ==
*]
I appreciate you putting protection on it. I imagine it can be lifted soon enough, but I agree this week has seen a swarm of odd additions. No need to reply, just wanted to say thanks :) -] 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

==Lady Aleena's RfA==
; Belated thankspam with apologies
{|
|]
|'''Jc37'''...I am so ashamed that I missed you when saying thank you to all of the others after ] closed. I was trying so hard to not miss anyone, that I did. Of all the people to miss, how could I have missed you? I think that I will have to rate this my worst gaff in my Misplaced Pages history. You took so much time participating in my RfA that you should have been at the top of the list. I know that it is a little to late, but thank you for participating. I know that we do not usually see eye to eye on almost everything, but there has been nothing but good between us communicatively, until now. Could you please think of this as the valentine card that slipped out of the pile for which I have been fervently looking and have now found at the bottom of my book bag? - ] @ 06:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
|]
|}

; Lady Aleena's future
{|
|]
|'''Jc37'''...Several people have expressed an interest in my next probable nomination for adminship. Messaging people when it happens would look a lot like canvassing, so I would prefer not doing that. If you are interested in it, you could add ] to your watchlist. If it is created, you will know, maybe even before I do depending on how often you check your watchlist. If you wish to gush prior to it being officially up, have fun, but only when it happens please. I am in no particular rush. Have a very nice day! :) - ] @ 10:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
|}

== Barnstar! ==
. that brought tears to my eyes. thanks again. ]] 03:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

== My RfA ==
Hi Jc37;
I wanted to say thank you for supporting ], which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, ] | ] 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

== Comicsproj Talk Page ==
Saw your post. Duelly noted, may deepest apologies. Just trying to move the noticeboard along. Perhaps an example could be provide in the archiving section for future ambitious editors. Again, apologies. -] (]) 01:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC).

== RFA Thanks ==
Thanks for your participation at ]. Thanks, in particular, for taking the time to ask a few questions, and then providing thorough feedback on my responses. I’ll keep your concerns in mind as I continue to work within the project. I hope you find I live up to your expectations of administrators. Best, ] (]) 16:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

==Batman Villain==
*]
Saw you redid the page, I thought it was a great change for the better, no response necessary, just wanted to expressed my appreciation. -] (]) 21:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC).

== Welcome back! ==
Glad to see your problems seem to have been resolved. --] 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
:Indeed, welcome back. ] (]) 06:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

==Quick TY==
Thanks for the review, your input is always appreciated. -] (]) 05:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC).

== Thanks ==
Thanks, was fun! ] (]) 14:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

== Thank you ==
Hello Jc37. Thank you for your kind reply. Regards, ] (]) 02:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

== Gut a random, horrid thought about the Batman stuff... ==
We may want to be watching "]", "]", "]", and ] a bit harder for the next few months. ] ran a bit that may or may not have legs about the net result of "R.I.P" but I foresee a lot of "helpful" edits and teeth grinding.

- ] (]) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==
Your bug was fixed and resolved a few minutes ago. :-) Cheers. --] (]) 06:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

== Oh, wrong queue ==
That has to be one of the better ones I have seen. You had me laughing out loud : ) - ] 12:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

; Yes, I am still hitting the wrong queue...

Thanks for the happy note! Sooner or later, I'll find the right queue. ] (]) 12:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]

] (]) has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! <br /> <small>''Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''</small>
</div><!-- Template:smile -->

== Thanks ==
Thanks for helping me about on the help desk. -- <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 15:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

== Short and to the point ==
exchange made me smile. :) –''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 01:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== CFDW listing format ==
Hi, I'm sending this message to regular users of ]. Now that I've ], the door is open to make all sorts of changes to the listing format. Join the discussion ]. I'd love to hear some comments from the most frequent users of CFDW on how best to improve it for humans. --] 03:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

== RE: Archive help ==
*] (])
*] link you were looking for.
Sorry it took so long. I've been very busy the past few weeks and haven't had time to do archive searches. ''']''' '']'' 01:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Star ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''Civility Award'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | ] hereby award this ] to ] for his courtesy and kindness in our recent discussions and his willingness to go the extra mile to reach a civil concord. ] (]) 13:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
|}

Just a little token of my appreciation for your willingness to work things out peacefully and engaging me in a civil discussion (even if I turn out to be in the wrong in the end). I wish more Wikipedians were like you. ] (]) 13:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

== Main Page redesign ==

The Main Page Redesign proposal is ] to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the ]. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 10:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

== Closure ==
*] (], ], ])
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] (previous discussion)
See my talk page. ] (]) 03:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

== Fiction-related categories ==

doesn't quite make sense. Think I've asked you before to leave clear edit summaries. Please explain why you did took off those categories. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
:Because those abilities are due to him being able to use magic.
:The use of magic can potentially duplicate any superhuman ability. - ] 20:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
::Then wouldn't it be wise to place the superhuman-related cats at ]? Or its subcats? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
:::um... (pardon the but-it...) You mean the category ''immediately'' before the first two removed as per the provided dif? - ] (]) 22:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. I'm just saying that the cats removed in could be placed in ], assuming that one would also sort out the subcategories. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Look and the comparison section of the dif you lead off with:
:::::"Category:Fictional characters in comics who use magic" ''precedes'' the "Category:Marvel Comics characters who can fly" and "Category:Marvel Comics characters who can teleport" which were removed.
:::::- ] (]) 01:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::Ah, point taken. Thanks J Greb. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 03:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

== I'm confused ==

I think I've been doing something wrong. If the character/group is soldier-related, what's the appropriate category to be placed: ] or ]? I just noticed that ] had both, so did ]. Help? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
:Are you suggesting that I place them in ], including Cap? Or are you gonna initiate a cfd? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 16:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
::What to do for now? Subcategorize? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I'll get right on it. BTW, you might wanna consider removing ] from ] since he flies primarily through use of a "magic feather". ] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:12, 25 December 2008