User:Jc37/NavBar

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 Oddjob hurling his hat in Goldfinger and beheading a statue with it. Doczilla (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that would make it a C Ring (the odds being astronomical, of course), rather than just a hole in one? Though personally I suppose one could just make an existential grab for the brass ring : ) - jc37 12:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

That was classy! :) Pedro :  Chat  11:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm just in a poetic mood : ) - jc37 12:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Godzilla(01)reverse.jpg

Thanks for !voting! Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!" Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. I am deeply grateful.

Rouge

That was a tough close... Well done. Someone had to and you are a mensch 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. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Doczilla _RAWR! 17:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that was well thought out. Nice job. --Kbdank71 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? (other discussion) (And yes, I realise that the concept is intended to be humour but it not taken that way by some or many :) ) Ansell 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See VegaDark'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. - jc37 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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). VegaDark (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just what do you think you're doing? [1]

As long as people refuse to depopulate the category, a de facto category exists. I recreated nothing! All I did was change the font color. Time to get real.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. VegaDark (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 "what is right"? - jc37 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot to remove deleted user categories from user pages. While particularly motivated users will still be able to circumvent the process by adding {{nobots}} 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. VegaDark (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 drama speediable. --Kbdank71 14:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. - jc37 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Special:Wantedcategories 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. VegaDark (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. - jc37 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Kbdank71 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(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. - jc37 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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...  :) --Kbdank71 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? - jc37 22:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 this 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? VegaDark (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. - jc37 00:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? Horologium (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the category talk page to Wikipedia-space as an archive? I did that as a courtesy, since the Wikipedia-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. - jc37 00:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See more at: his talk page

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? --Kbdank71 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		for not going completely nuts at UCFD. Kbdank71 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but maybe sticking with the UCFD mess at all is indicative of being nuts in the first place. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another barnstar

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		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. Hiding T 16:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet another barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Long overdue for all the fine UCFD work you have been at for years. VegaDark (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did this become barnstar central?

Seriously, though, congrats, you deserve every one of them. --Kbdank71 16:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 : ) - jc37 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having now had the opportunity to look at all of the user category and userbox guideline pages...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For clarifying, organizing, and developing guidance on user categories, through lots of little tweaks, some big changes, and countless comments at WP:UCFD, and for helping to bring practical significance to a formerly lonely userspace page. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Kbdank71 23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow, I actually didn't even know about this 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

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for making me feel like I'm part of the cast of Cheers Pewwer42  Talk  02:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Hiding T 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are too short : )

What I meant is that they affect the perceiver. They effect (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. - jc37 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Hiding T 00:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:LAME : ) - jc37 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'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. Horologium (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean transitive and intransitive? I thought about that, but "affect" can also be a transitive verb. - jc37 01:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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". Horologium (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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, Hiding T 11:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? : ) - jc37 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?^[1] No! Hiding T 10:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you win! I think I should have said which would in effect affect me more. :( Hiding T 10:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My brain hurts. --Kbdank71 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? Hiding T 10:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's WP:STOCKS, but I'm sure we could find "something" here : ) - jc37 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think parts of this (particularly Jc37's parenthetical statement above) need to be added to Wikipedia:Talk page highlights. Horologium (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is, someone would list it on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Spelling and punctuation and we'd edit war it off onto a new Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Grammar, with the argument spiralling out as to whether changing an a to an e is a spelling error or a grammatical one. Hiding T 10:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Wording already exists, why do we need to effectively create another policy page? WP:NOT#BURO, 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^[2]. (Just to put it into perspective.) - jc37 02:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.^[3] Hiding T 19:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ow ow ow! ^[4] --Kbdank71 19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.^[5]

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, effect), I interject: Salutation! : ) - jc37 13:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was amazing. Player 03 (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

He's still moving pages to nonsensical titles (see Guardian (Marvel Comics)). Could you see that this doesn't happen again? He's been told to discuss such controversial moves, yet does not do so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2¢...

BBiA has received recent warnings on this: April 22 and May 1. 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.

- J Greb (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed his contributions as requested, and quite a few additional talk pages. Please see his talk page for more information. - jc37 04:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Alternate versions of Megaton Man, 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 Vavavoom (merged over prod) over a month ago, Tutinax (merged over prod over a month ago, and Kleinstocks (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. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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). - J Greb (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Vavavoom and Tutinax are in the same shape: redirected less than 24 hours after the PROD. - J Greb (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question in regards to protocol. Would the redirect be considered a removal of the PROD? -66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Brian Boru is awesome keeps on undoing my adding the infoboxes for the various Defenders teams from the Defenders (Comics) 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 Asperger syndrome 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. Spshu (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 :) -Markeer 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thankspam with apologies

Jc37...I am so ashamed that I missed you when saying thank you to all of the others after my request for adminship 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 Wikipedia 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? - LA @ 06:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 this 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! :) - LA @ 10:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. that brought tears to my eyes. thanks again. Dlohcierekim 03:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jc37; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, 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, PeterSymonds | talk 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your participation at my recent Request for adminship. 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, Risker (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Batman enemies

Saw you redid the page, I thought it was a great change for the better, no response necessary, just wanted to expressed my appreciation. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Glad to see your problems seem to have been resolved. --Kbdank71 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, welcome back. VegaDark (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, your input is always appreciated. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, that was fun! RichardF (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jc37. Thank you for your kind reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We may want to be watching "Batman", "Dick Grayson", "Batman R.I.P.", and the template a bit harder for the next few months. LitG 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.

- J Greb (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

That has to be one of the better ones I have seen. You had me laughing out loud : ) - jc37 12:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks for helping me about on the help desk. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This exchange made me smile. :) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• User:CameronPG (talk)
• AN/I 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. Enigma ^message 01:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Civility Award
		I hereby award this Barnstar to Jc37 for his courtesy and kindness in our recent discussions and his willingness to go the extra mile to reach a civil concord. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 10:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal (talk, archive 3, straw poll 2008-10-18)
• WP:AN#Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/straw poll 2008-10-18
• User talk:ChyranandChloe#Closure
• User talk:Jennavecia#Jc37
• User talk:David Levy#Main Page redesign
• User talk:HereToHelp#Main Page redesign
• User talk:Avruch#Misinterpretation
• MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#2008 main page redesign proposal RFC (previous discussion)

See my talk page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit 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. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because those abilities are due to him being able to use magic.

The use of magic can potentially duplicate any superhuman ability. - jc37 20:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then wouldn't it be wise to place the superhuman-related cats at Category:Fictional characters who use magic? Or its subcats? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

um... (pardon the but-it...) You mean the category immediately before the first two removed as per the provided dif? - J Greb (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. I'm just saying that the cats removed in this edit could be placed in Category:Fictional characters who use magic, assuming that one would also sort out the subcategories. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

- J Greb (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, point taken. Thanks J Greb. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking over User:Jc37/RfA/RfB candidates, and thinking about who else I haven't yet asked, but should.

See also User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria, for what I tend to look for in entrusting someone with more responsibility.

And I think you easily meet my requirements. (As I think you already know : )

So is this something you might consider? - jc37 22:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I would consider this. I guess civility is my strong point, however the missing tip of my tongue hurts me to no end. I should point out that some of my recent closes on CfD may have been based on using my crystal ball. Given that they have not gone to deletion review or resulted in any posts to my talk page I would have to say that the ball is finally working. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I borrow that crystal ball? BTW, someone poke me if "I would consider this" turns into "yes". I'm definitely supporting (I'd ask to co-nom as well, but I don't want to taint anything (because my crystal ball is apparently broken)).

BTW, JC, you can probably take my name off your list. When you come to the realization that you don't stand a snowball's chance, it's best to keep your hat firmly planted on your head. --Kbdank71 02:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Responded to Vegaswikian on his talk page.)

As for you, a co-nom would be most welcome. I'm terrible at writing them, in that I always feel like I'm never writing enough, while yet trying to not be too verbose that no one reads it : ) - jc37 10:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]