User talk:Gtrmp/2004

Archived content from 2004. -Sean Curtin 03:15, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

---

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

snoyes 02:34, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! While many of your edits on list of Marvel Comics characters were helpful, please read the guidelines on the talk page first to see why certain names were done the way they were done. Thanks a lot. --Lowellian 07:54, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Please do not create pages link Green Goblin II. It was decided on talk:List of Marvel Comics characters to put all the info on different versions of characters onto one page. Also, please leave off the 'list-style' descripsions of the character and their powers. Work that info into the text, as per talk:Strength levels (comics). Thanks! - UtherSRG 00:41, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• I actually wasn't the one who created the numbered entries or linked to them, or who used the 'list-style' profiles--I simply went into Green Goblin III to fix a bad link.--Sean 01:22, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Hello! I like a lot of your edits, but could you fill in the edit summary more often? Thanks! --Mrwojo 15:04, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Will do. -Sean 09:56, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm not so sure changing links that point to psychic so that they point to parapsychology is a real good idea. Parapsychologists and psychics aren't the same thing: one of them studies the other, and so it would be possible to write an article about both without much overlap. And if that happens someone will have to "undo" the changes. - Nunh-huh 09:14, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Aliens in fiction

I second the idea of producing a single alphabetical list, but I was going to tag each entry with the type, maybe have an introductory paragraph explaining all the different types so as not to lose information (I don't think we really need two lists). Do you want to do that or shall I? --Phil 08:08, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Although tagging the entries by type helps, I think doing it both ways is the better way to handle the issue. -Sean 08:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Iceingdeath et al

Just to let you know that all that lovely work you did on Iceingdeath, Twinkle and related articles has just been undone again by the original anon IP that created them. Leave them for a bit and then try again: the anon user may get the picture then. – Graham  :) 02:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I noticed, yeah. Thanks for the heads-up. -Sean 02:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I seem to be the anon IP that was refered to I apoligise for the inconvieance I am new to the Wiki way and had thought the computer had moved all that over. Again I apoligise both for the headake and the spelling

Hey no problem we all started at some point. I apologise for sounding a bit negative; we've had a bit of a problem with anon IP's on this website today... Nothing to do with you as I can plainly see now. Graham  :) 03:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I hate to sound annoying but I didn't know that site was updated regularly is there a way I could have known, also is there somewhere I should ask these questions?

Got to Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers for the full intro, if there's anything else you need to know feel free to ask me on my talk page. – Graham  :) 03:09, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

thanks

---

I noticed you moved Arctic_Fox to Arctic_fox. I think the convention here is that common names of species have all words begin with capitals. I'm moving it back. Dsmdgold 21:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion

For some reason, your last edit to the Votes for Deletion page caused it to be blanked. That wasn't your intention, was it? RickK | Talk 00:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, and I don't know how or why it did that. I reverted it back as soon as it came up. -Sean 00:53, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

It may not be that bad of an idea to put some sort of notification on an article's talk page before you move it about, to see if the move is really needed. Falcon 03:49, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Action-adventure games

Thanks for your quality expansion on the action-adventure games article – it will definitely serve to reduce some of the confusion between the genres. Great work! Adam Conover 01:47, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

merged pages

Your merge of Grand Duchesses & co. have caused some confusion in the interwiki links. I would suggest that you take a second look.
--Ruhrjung 15:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

There was a reason why I took down the links to individual names of the Hesperides within that article...where there are pages, they have other uses of those names, and nothing relevant but links back to the main Hesperides page. One is already a redirect. As I have never seen any stories of any of the Hesperides in anything as a group, I don't think there ever will be any more information for any of the individual Hesperides. Tell me your thoughts after you see what I'm talking about, but I'd like to re-remove those links.

Posdlf 8:46 PM 3 Apr 2004 (EST)

Fair enough, I'll remove the links. -Sean 15:30, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

turning 'Undead'

Hi Gtrmp, did you see my comment on the "undead" talk page? The correction you made to the "turn undead" definition has been made before but another user has twice changed it back to this bizarre definition about becoming a lich. I was going to wait a few days after my Talk entries (for comments) before correcting it (but obviously it's fine that you've done it anyway). Look forward to hearing from you. Zuytdorp Survivor 08:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I saw that after I'd made the edit - I was going to add a comment about that section, until I noticed that it'd already been commented upon. :/ -Sean 22:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Categorization

I find your categorization of Eequor as a fictional goddess extremely offensive. --Eequor 21:42, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry; the first source I checked (which was apparently erroneous) credited her as a creation of Michael Moorcock. -Sean Curtin 00:48, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My research indicates that User:Eequor is the founding priestess of the religion of Sininaniinaninaan, a new religion that she says she has yet to be fully formalise/discover. Perhaps User:Eequor will agree that the goddess first made herself known in this world through visions granted to author Michael Moorcock who included them within novels. I just want to be sure that we all understand one another. Do any sources of information about the goddess predate Michael Moorcock's revelations? Zuytdorp Survivor 01:32, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That seems about right, though I must admit I'm unaware of any revelations Moorcock may have had. Eequor guided me to herself by other means. --Eequor 03:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

new warriors

thanks for fixing up my stupid misprint in the title. And my badly misremembered character names. I have just dug out issue 1 from my collection to fix it up, but you have already done for me. Do you know if there is anyway to retitle a page, without redirecting? Scottbeck

Use the "Move" button to retitle a page. The old page title will automatically be turned into a redirect to the new name. -Sean Curtin 00:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

aha, thanksScottbeck

Minor edits

Please do not mark as minor edits which are not minor, as defined in Wikipedia:Minor edit. Thank you. --Lowellian 09:59, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Regarding Timberwolf (Marvel Comics), please don't mark pages like that as speedy deletion candidates. The only speedy deletion pages are patent nonsense (for example, if the sole content were "Have a nice day I like pie" or something of that nature). Things that should be deleted go to VfD, things that need help (like that page) go to Cleanup. Read Wikipedia:Speedy deletions for more. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Virtual world

Nice work on Virtual world - Tεxτurε 14:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! -Sean Curtin 20:51, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Buddhist deities

Can I ask what your purpose in creating a "Buddhist deities" category is, and more particularly, what you think will ultimately go there? "Agni," for example, is not a Buddhist deity; if he figures in Buddhism at all (Indra, for example, does figure in the Tipitaka, but I don't recall offhand if Agni does), it as a loan-figure from Hinduism; such figures are Hindu deities and are at most "Characters in Buddhist literature." I'm just dropping a line here to make sure there's not something I'm missing before I restructure the categories. – कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 11:01, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, I agree that they should probably be done away with for redundancy's sake; the only reason I created the "deities" category was to have a parent category for the "gods" category. -Sean Curtin 17:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can't tell whether we're actually in agreement or I wasn't sufficiently specific; what I intended is to point out that both "Buddhist gods" and "Buddhist deities" are unworkable categories. Is that what we're talking about? – कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 18:23, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we're in agreement; the categories were unnecessary in the first place. -Sean Curtin 18:26, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template:Elvis Presley

Hi Sean, I just deleted the influence article of Elvis Presley by vfd consensus and in the debate you mentioned another page that may need deleting: Template:Elvis Presley. Because of the intricacies of this debate I feel you ought really to list it separately under its own heading on the Votes for deletion page. Cheers, – Graham ☺ | Talk 00:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your help for self-harm to breasts and sexual organs

Hi Gtrmp, Am really glad that you listed the article that has been written only by me till now for clean up. Hope someone will have the courage to improve this intensely emotional and shocking subject. I'm so glad you think it should stay in wikipedia.org . I was so afraid people wud find the subject was emotionally to heavy to have in our encyclopedia.

BTW your name Gtrmp is *VERY* hard to pronounce. Are you maybe from Tsjechia were g's and r's are used as consonants? :-P Or is this just a way to annoy people? :-D

Wow, I'm so glad I wrote that article about self-harm to b&s. I've been struggling for years to write this article. (No need to say it's a heavy subject cos I've done it myself. Sorry for telling this, maybe I shouldn't tell it.)

TH4NKS F0R Y0UR H3LP! CYA!!!!!!!!!!11111111oneoneone Paulus/laudaka

Paulus/laudaka (add me to your YIM/AIM/ICQ/M$N M contact list if you like!) Laudaka's talk page 08:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

gtrmp is an acronym, my real name's Sean. I agree that the subject deserves a space here; fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't shy away from touchy issues. -Sean Curtin 15:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes FAC

Hello! I need a bit more information about your objection to the Calvin and Hobbes article in order to resolve it. Will you please take a moment to revisit the article and the nomination, and add a few more thoughts on what you think needs to be improved, or else change your objection to support? I appreciate it. Alanyst 15:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good suggestions; I have made some changes as a result. Care to take another look? Thanks. Alanyst 23:07, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Grand Illusion

I noticed your change to The Grand Illusion. I've come across many different ways to handle the foreign language names of works of art in Wikipedia. I'm of the opinion that the foreing language name should come first with an explanation of the translation. So in the case of The Grand Illusion, I'd start it...

Le Grande Illusion, is a 1937 French film known in its English language release as The Grand Illusion.

There's been discussion of this Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, but the discussion always seems to get sidetracked by how to handle the names of places (which I think could go either way). I'd like to hear your opinions.--Samuel Wantman 20:36, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I personally prefer to list the English name followed by the foreign language name; a user of the English language Wikipedia is probably going to want the English name for a topic first and foremost. -Sean Curtin 22:14, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Slang ephemera

Hi, Sean, just a note on why I put that comment in in the VfD debate about Dirty Sanchez. It's too complex to list there, but I was just trying to explain to others my own philosophy on slang deletions. Some things, like Terror cookie, are obviously idiosyncratic. One kid and his buddies have a term for other kids and their buddies. That fails because of lack of dissemination. On the other hand, there are slang terms and phrases that hit exceptionally large usage ("Whazzuuuup") in a small area for a short time. In the case of the Miller Lite television campaign, the idiotic repetition of "Whazzuuuup" was pandemic, and yet it was exclusively American and had disappeared in 18 months. To me, this is ephemera. "Cutting edge" youth programs traffic in slang. It's one way they generate (forgive me for touting my own work) Ethos with their audiences. These usually have some usage but disappear remarkably quickly because the shows that create them have to create new ones. Sometimes these things become in-group codewords (like Rush Limbaugh's coinages) to differentiate like-minded people (and I regret to say that "sock puppet" is his). I, personally, will vote for deletion if I think a slang term is going to disappear quickly. I agree that it's not quite the Wikipedia philosophy, but I think about all the trouble that the Crank Yankers fans create with their instant posting of terms that appear on that show (like Chigga) and vote my conscience. Anyway, sorry for rambling, but I wanted to explain that I was writing more of a declaration of conscience and kind of explaining why I vote the way I do than suggesting that others do the same. (Oh, and I do write this way most of the time. :-)) Geogre 15:24, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I understand where you're coming from. -Sean Curtin 21:31, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

X-Men Dispute

Hi there,

I'm posting this message to everyone involved in the current revert-flurry on X-Men.

As a neutral observer (and X-Men fan!), it seems that there are some pretty major differences in the versions of this article that are being reverted back and forth, and yet no discussion on the Talk:X-Men page. May I suggest that we all try to cool down a little, move the discussion of the article from User talk:Michael Rawdon to Talk:X-Men, and try to hash out some consensus one issue at a time? Reverting back and forth between significantly different versions of the article helps nobody.

Cheers! —Stormie 00:43, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Merging Bloodletting

Thanks for merging this article. I wanted to do it myself but I can't stand blood. :-P – Pladask 13:08, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Norse Mythology

Why did you revert my links? Its going to take a long time to go thru and reinsert them all. What could have possibly motivated you to do such a thing? Isn't obvious how useful and relevant they are? Sam [Spade] 21:18, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They are related, but to the general Norse mythology articles rather than the specific articles in which you included them - especially the article on the Nine Worlds of Norse Mythology, which isn't specifically relevant to any of the articles except the Odin one, and in that case I placed the link in the body of the article where the cosmology was mentioned. If a user wants more information on Norse mythology in general, they can follow the wikilink to Norse mythology. It seems like a greatly unnecessary amount of repetition to include these links in the hundred-plus Norse mythology articles. That said, a simple Norse mythology template (linking to the main article, the two lists, and the Nine Worlds) would be better and I would support its creation and insertion.

Also, including Category:Norse mythology was redundant, as it is already the parent category of Category:Norse gods and Category:Norse goddesses. -Sean Curtin 22:12, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea about the template too, but I've never made one before. I don't like the gender specific diety catagories, whose idea was that? I find it unhelpfully overspecific, which is why I didn't do it that way. Sam [Spade] 23:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think I might have back when categories were first implemented, but I now agree about the specificness; they're all parented under the deities categories so it's not too hard to find them, though now the specific subcategorization is really a bit much. Never made a temple, myself, either, but there's one on most of the major Hinduism articles that could be easily copied and modified as needed. -Sean Curtin 00:02, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, lets. Would there be a template page we'd edit, or some such? Sam [Spade] 01:53, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here you go: Template:Norse mythology, based on Template:HinduMythology. Edit and add it as you will. -Sean Curtin 05:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And are you OK w me adding it to all the norse gods, places, etc.. articles? Sam [Spade] 00:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I personally don't see the point of adding it to tiny stubs like Miming, but adding it to larger and more prominent articles like Tyr is A-OK with me. -Sean Curtin 00:42, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IMO the best way to make those one sentance sub-stubs useful is thru links, or a template like this. Do you have any strong objections to me doing it? Maybe we can compromise by adding enough content to make them at least stub-sized? ;) Sam [Spade] 00:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I can't find anything on miming at all.. Sam [Spade] 00:48, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Found some stuff on Miming and expanded accordingly. -Sean Curtin 01:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great! Have you seen my nomination of Norse mythology on FAC? Sam [Spade] 05:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Scourge

Thanks for filling the Scourge of the Underworld stub in; you have been very busy!

I just have the three Captain America issues... I have re-added the "appearances" section for the character; hopefully someone will be able to fill it in and I can assemble my Scourge collection.

brain

• Lists of character appearances aren't really the province of Wikipedia; you might want to try sites like the Marvel Chronology Project or the Marvel Appendix for lists of appearances. -Sean Curtin 05:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Doug Moench

Hi, I'm glad people are helping to fix up the artical, but you are messing things up by changing the headings.

this is the table of contents now...

1 Partial bibliography

 1.1 DC Comics
 1.2 Marvel Comics
   1.2.1 Epic Comics
 1.3 Malibu Comics
 1.4 Dark Horse Comics

2 Non-comics work

So you dropped the DC subgroups Vertigo and Factoid Books but left Epic as a subgroup of Marvel.

Why?

Why is Partial bibliography and Non-Comics on the same level? Non-Comics should be on the level of the comic companies.

Deleting user subpages

G'day Sean

Agree with your comment in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:IndigoGenius/Jus cerebri electronici. I've started a discussion on the topic at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#deleting_user_subpages, and I'd welcome further input. Andrewa 20:51, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Plane (Dungeons & Dragons)

What's the point of moving from Plane of existence when it is not used in any context apart from D&D? It doesn't need to be moved until someone adds some generic/non D&D info (if that can ever happen). ··gracefool |☺ 03:13, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Becaues the phrase "plane of existence" is not exclusive to D&D. (Search Google for the exact phrase "plane of existence" and see how long it takes to find any D&D-related results.) -Sean Curtin 04:48, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categorizing

Hey there, just browsing through the Michigan articles, and seeing how much you've accomplished. Keep up the good work! Postdlf 10:17, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! -Sean Curtin 15:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Television

Hi. I've made a proposal on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). If you are willing, I would appreaciate it if you could establish a formal poll about the naming convention. I suggest you look at talk:analogue disc record as an example of a poll that I think has been a model for such things. If you don't feel up to this task please let me know. I would do it myself but I've had enough of confrontations with Netoholic for the moment. Mintguy (T) 09:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do. -Sean Curtin 01:31, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

I think a better format would be a to mimic Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/poll. The reason I say this is because the (now disputed) convention was written and, whether people agree or not, the pages have already been moved. I suggest this format – Netoholic 05:19, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Should Wikipedia adopt Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)?
  • A. Yes, it should be adopted.
  • B. Yes, but further discussion on some points is needed (specify)
  • C. No, but some points should be retained (specify)
  • D. No, all aspects of the written convention need to be re-discussed.

Television program

Have you had a look at the TONS of pages which link to Television program? NOT A SINGLE page links to Television programming except Talk pages. I'm going to move it back. RickK 06:07, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion any article that gives itself two separate boldface titles (television program/me) needs to have a better title. "Television programming" seemed like the most natural non-linguistically-exclusive title. -Sean Curtin 06:11, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. "Television programming" is a better place for the main article. – Netoholic 12:53, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004

You may be interested in a last-ditch attempt to save User:Pgreenfinch's endangered article European Union Olympic medals count for 2004 which is on a subpage page of VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004. Because this is a subpage it may not be noticed by those scanning the regular VfD page. Recent votes to keep appear to be sock-puppets or people who have become users only to support this article. You may wish to add your vote or comments or both. Jallan 13:23, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fictional articles policy

Hi Sean, here's a discussion you're probably more interested in, as a D&D fan: which fictional subjects deserve articles of their own (eg. Lord Soth). I've just created a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Articles about fiction, where your input would be appreciated. Cheers, ··gracefool |☺ 23:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I've done a major rewrite of the policy - I was approaching it in the wrong way. It is no longer a poll, but an attempt to reach a consensus. It is also more general, basically an amendment to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It is now called Wikipedia:Importance. Again, your input would really be appreciated. ··gracefool |☺ 05:47, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Astrobiology

You said on Wikipedia:Cleanup that the "scientifically preferred" term for astrobiology should be used as the title of the article. Do you know which term this is? --Smack 21:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No idea, I'm not particularly familiar with the field, sorry. -Sean Curtin 22:57, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Category:1914 births and Category:1995 deaths

BTW I added a couple of entries to the above. You might be interested in the related discussion on Category talk:Years. – User:Docu

Adminship?

I assume you're familiar with the concept, but has nobody asked you yet if you would like to be an administrator? You seem like a natural choice, and if you're willing, I would like to nominate you. Please let me know. --Michael Snow 23:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nobody's asked yet, but I'd definitely be interested. -Sean Curtin 00:56, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Great! I've posted the nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, so please reply there to indicate whether you accept. As you probably know, people sometimes have questions for the candidates, so you may want to follow the discussion to answer those (although recently I haven't seen the stock questions that were being used for a little while). --Michael Snow 01:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! -Sean Curtin 01:32, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sprite

Thanks for the additions in Sprite (fantasy). I havn't been editing on Wikipedia very long, but I wanted to start up a project. Going at it alone can be frustrating though, thanks. Dustin Asby 04:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleting user subpages

There's a vote in progress at Wikipedia talk:Deletion of user subpages. Please consider voting. I have also requested that the proposal be frozen for the period of the vote, but this has met with opposition. Your participation in the process would be greatly appreciated. Andrewa 10:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Admin promotion

You are now an admin. You might want to browse through Wikipedia:Administrators. Good luck. →Raul654 02:37, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations! I trust you will do an excellent job with the digital mop and broom. --Slowking Man 06:31, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do my best. -Sean Curtin 01:33, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Vfd/Deep

You kind of voted for two different things on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Deep. Which one are you in favor of?

Vote clarified. -Sean Curtin 23:07, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

TV Naming conventions.

At some point in the past you expressed an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). I have instigated a new poll on that page. I am hoping that this poll will properly allow all users who have an interest in the subject to express their views fairly before we come to a consensus. I have scrapped the poll that was previously in place on that page because I believe that it was part of an unfair procedure that was going against the majority view. I am appealing to all users who contribute to that page to approve my actions. I would appreciate it if you could take the time and trouble to read the page carefully and express an opinion and vote as you see fit. Mintguy (T) 16:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well I can understand that you would prefer your version of the poll, but it appears that such complicated polls are not preferred by other users. My first draft here was declared to be too confusing by several users. It is possible to add additional sections to the poll I have proposed. BTW please remember that what we trying to do is create sensible disambiguation where (and only where) it is neccesary, it does not need to be overly complicated. I believe that Netoholic is championing your poll for his own reasons. Mintguy (T) 23:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• The problem with allowing voters to add their own options during the polling process is that those who vote first are essentially voting on a different poll than those who vote last. Additional options for and input on the poll should have been solicited before voting began. -Sean Curtin 23:47, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

• All of the options on your poll are covered, albeit lumped together, as up for further discussion if necessary. A poll of this nature worked very well on talk:analogue disc record, see [1]. Mintguy (T)

• • That poll looks as badly organized as any I've ever seen! Heh. – Netoholic @ 03:23, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Other problems with your poll

Some things are listed as separate options which should not be mutually exclusive. For example (program) and (programme). Few Brits are going to vote for program exclusive of programme and few Americans for programme exclusive of program. It is divisive. Only Fools and Horses (TV program) would be completely unacceptable to most Brits, there is no need to list these things as separate options. Similarly a 'one-off' program cannot be disambiguated with (series) so it makes no sense to have this as a separate option exclusivce of show etc.. , both series (or season) and show/program/or other would have to be available if necessary Mintguy (T) 00:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• The "one-time"/"serial" distinction was created (without discussion) by User:Netoholic, and I am in the process of repairing those edits right now. I agree that merging the "program/me" options is preferrable. -Sean Curtin 00:33, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

• Ok. Please take another look at the poll I have created, the additional options in your poll are listed as possible options for further discussion in the one I have instigated. I am appealing to you reconsider whether listing these other otions would be beneficial at this stage or whether we should simply judge in what direction most people think we should go and then delve into the nitty gritty if it becomes necesarry. Mintguy (T) 01:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Sorry, more. - I don't quite understand part 1 of your poll. We're not discussing whether we should have a page called TV series of television series. We are trying to establish disambiguation terms only. In part 2 what does Television/TV series (all series) and Television/TV series (episodic series only) mean? Do you mean by the former that one-off programmes should be use (TV series) as a disambiguator? This would seem illogical. Mintguy (T) 01:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unjustified detour

Regardless of your adminship, I consider it vandalism to redirect a topic, such as belief system to belief, without prior discussion. Those two subjects are very different in many respects. Good day. Adraeus 22:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• No page existed at belief system until I created the redirect. I agree that the two topics are distinct, but until someone creates a page on the topic (which I would welcome) the redirect should suffice. -Sean Curtin 23:38, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I guessed that was your reason but you provided no context to accurately judge your intent. Adraeus 05:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:People by year

I added some not very original stuff with this page. Maybe you are interested. – User:Docu

Occupation of Palestine

Please see my question at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine#Tally: Rephrasing the question – Jmabel 01:22, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Request dispute resolution

Sean, please see User_talk:Adraeus.

Nevermind if the abuser stops harassing me.

Happy Birthday!

Happy birthday, Sean! Best wishes. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 02:51, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! -Sean Curtin 03:30, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Bong/Bangs

Lester Bangs eh? Oh my God, of course. I learn something every day - thanks. ←Hob 15:24, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

your comments are desired

Please take a look at a discussion on the village pump; an admin has taken it upon himself to challenge clear VfD deletion results through a third channel, other than voting and undeletion requests. Thought you might be interested... Postdlf 01:45, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Prophecy and Prophet

I hope that you will come to realize that these two cultural phenomena are not indistinguishable, that they have separate cultural histories and retain separate spheres even in populist modern culture. There are plenty of prophecies at the check-out counter. There are many prophets other than Daniel. This merge is such a poor idea. How can we prevent it? --Wetman 01:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The prophecy page is a quite poor page, and would best be served by redirecting to something else. -Sean Curtin 02:21, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

User page unprotection

Hi, I unprotected your user page based on a request by UninvitedCompany, on the grounds that protection is generally considered un-wiki and should be reserved for situations in which it is seriously needed. I decided to unprotect because the history shows that your page has never actually been vandalized. I think any isolated instances can be reverted without serious harm; if vandalism does become a serious problem for you in the future, perhaps we could reconsider the question. --Michael Snow 22:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vampire Lifestyle butchering

I protest your continued butchering of the Vampire lifestyle page (as in august). Major edits involving ommission of previously added data not added by you should be discussed on the talk page. Falcon 01:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you can find any references to support the claim that there are actually vampire hunters who attempt to hunt and kill members of the vampire subculture, feel free to add that section back in. I couldn't find anything to support it, and the claim that "any vampire is capable of killing any human with little effort" is contradicted by the majority of sites on the subject. I fail to see how one edit over two months ago is "continued butchering". -Sean Curtin 23:45, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Kolchak

Hey, thanks for fixing that up. Noel (talk) 01:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or even {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 100. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing), you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}} – Ram-Man 22:00, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

And vs. &

I wrote a question at Talk:Ampersand a while ago about whether to use and or &, but no one has responded. (This was brought to my attention when I saw your edits in Recent Changes.) 66.245.68.62 01:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:RfD edit clash

Hi, we somehow seemed to have an edit clash on WP:VfD. Shall I fix it (to prevent us doing the same thing all over again, trying to fix it)? Noel (talk) 23:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you've already got it. Noel (talk) 23:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wrong redirection of Flashing

Your redirection of "flashing" to the flash disambiguation page has resulted in losing all information about flashing of BIOS and other chips. Flash memory is distinctly different to the process of flashing and the process of flashing a BIOS is now not covered anywhere. Please revert. (talk)

• I've readded the lost section to the flash page. -Sean Curtin 01:00, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

GoGo

Hi, thanks for merging GoGo. I agree with the merge and I've already voted for that page to be deleted. However on balance I think it was probably going too far to replace the content by a redirect while the VfD is still ongoing. I don't have terribly strong feelings about it, I just feel a bit uneasy about it, so I've reverted to the previous version. Thought I'd better explain. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• No problem, I usually prefer to be bold in such matters but I understand wanting to avoid that when the page in question is on VfD. -Sean Curtin 05:14, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Merging of Clock/Sandal punk into Steampunk

I think these genres should probably have there own smaller articles, linked to in small summaries in this main article.

This keeps this article smaller, and more focused. It will also help define what is steampunk and what is not-really steampunk.

Other steampunk spin offs (Bronzepunk, stonepunk etc.) shoudl probably also be made into small articles.

"Variation of a theme" isn't really a criteria for redirect if enough substance is available, and inclusion detracts away from main theme. Personally I've had a lot more experience with Clockpunk, and thought that steampunk was just a variation of that.--ZayZayEM 08:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although the "high-tech Renaissance" theme is probably at least as common as steampunk, the name "clockpunk" itself isn't a very common term for it, and "sandalpunk" is even less common. I'd rather see these merged into one page than given their own articles and inevitably being deleted (and they would most likely be deleted - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Timepunk for the unanimous deletion of a related neologism). -Sean Curtin 23:25, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Comics stuff

Thanks for the great cleanup work on X-Force/X-Statix. I'm curious, though, about your reference (in the edit summary) to the Milligan/Allred team as "X-Force III." What do you consider X-Force II? Also, if I haven't invited you already, you're welcome to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics.-leigh (φθόγγος)

The first "X-Force" was introduced in Cloak & Dagger volume 3. They were a bunch of government-created X-Men knockoffs, most of whom died before their first appearance. They're pretty obscure characters, and are only notable because of the name. -Sean Curtin 23:53, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)