Misplaced Pages

♦My Spellbook♦ (Or, "How I Learned to Stop Hatin' & Love All the Crazy")
Arc 001 Arc 002 Arc 003 Arc 004

In meetings all morning (in and out)

Weekly RfA Dramaz

What was archived

* What has gone before...

TOC Limit

When articles become overly segmented and have an extremely complex table of contents that tends to dominate the introduction or lede, the individual sub-sets can be folded in, by using the tag {{TOClimit|limit=2}}. This is especially useful in lengthy, major articles but I would not recommend its use in minor articles. FWiW, see Amelia Earhart, Anna May Wong and F-117 Nighthawk Bzuk (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

Its ability to create a shortened form of table of contents is the tag's special secret, not to be revealed as it is "black magic" (LOL). (Seriously, try it out, another editor began to exploit its use and I have been experimenting with it; it works well only on a massive list, but it does have some value.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

Wow, does Ronald Reagan need a pruning, the article not the man, of course. See the difference in versions: then and now. Seriously, the article really needs a cleanup as it has a gazillion (a real word) inconsistencies in spelling, grammar and especially referencing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

Googoosh

Call me crazy but 2008 dates are all in the past so are not "WP:CRYSTAL;", eh? Smkolins (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol! You are completely right. I've self-reverted. Thanks, Smkolins. :) - Arcayne () 05:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

:-) I've managed some of my own bonehead things over the years myself.... Smkolins (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Children of Men

Hey! It was nice seeing a message from you again (although you probably have no idea about what I'm talking about). Anyways, regarding my edits, I understand completely where you are coming from and I'm quite indifferent about the issue. It would probably be best if you left the atress' name in the plot section, as she does deserve a mention at least. The main reason I added the character to the cast section was because I found the character so hilarious that I felt she must have a mention (the Bad! Bad! Bad! scene almost had me on the floor!), so my intentions probably weren't too great to start with. I guess the character is covered quite well in the plot section, and as there is (unfortunately) no real-world info on casting etc., removing her from the cast section is fine. Hope my reply wasn't too long, :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

re: biting

Would you believe: unsourced, OR? DP76764 (Talk) 03:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

JTA

I was just talking about the earlier misunderstanding, when you thought that I had added an irrelevant reference to this JTA article. You wrote, "We do not have citations for any of the others, and attributing them to a citation that doesn't make those claims (like the citing of Michelle Benjamin, etc when the citation does not say that) sets the wrong precedent." That was because you had missed the relevant sentence in the article which did make that identification. I thought you were saying I had misattributed the sourcing. It was just a misunderstanding, but it got my back up a bit and got us off on the wrong foot (he said, mixing his bodily metaphors).

No biggie. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that; I was largely unaware that you were still carrying the weight of the misunderstanding around. :) We are okay now, right? - Arcayne () 06:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah — we're good. Sorry I was so grumpy. (I was also having a bad day in real life, and I let it carry over onto the wiki. Bad Wikipedian!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Been there, done that, got the commemorative coffee mug. :) - Arcayne () 18:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick note

Sorry to keep coming back like a bad penny, but I'm a little concerned at this edit-summary. Calling someone a "noob" in a dismissive manner is really impolite, not civil at all. Whatever you say, that it's just a common term, or that you didn't mean it like that etc., won't change the fact that it's offensive... could you possibly hold back from pejoratively referring to other users in themselves? Thanks!

As usual, I am not commenting on the actual content dispute at hand. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Noob is four letters. New contributor is fifteen. I don't have characters to waste on what was a wikistalking distraction. Noob wasn't meant as a pejorative; using as a descriptive the terms 'feltch monkey' or 'ass rabbit' would have been. Note that I didn't apply those to the user. - Arcayne () 11:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, while you may not have meant it offensively, it is a pejorative term (see the article on "newbie," for example. You didn't need to refer to the fact that they were a new contributor at all, or to them at all, in that case. A summary such as subcat to refocus would have been perfectly sufficient. Please try, in future, even if you personally don't think it's necessary. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice

I have removed the edit notice, and by the way, I'm not an admin, but if he does continue, I will take it up on ANI and push for a block.— Dædαlus 10:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page, I'm getting tired, and doing that diff thing is tiring.— Dædαlus 10:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)