Welcome to my talk page! Please be sure to make all posts civil and constructive, as I'll revert anything I deem to be vandalism. Also, let us try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! My Talk Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Hello, I would like some input into my proposal at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Unknown_Rebel , if you can spare a moment. Have a nice day. SpiritWorldWiki (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good initiative and many outstanding arguments and examples! You may want to look at my user page for some essays, policies, and edits that can be cited to strengthen your points with specifics from our community. You should also check out Wikipedia:Deletion reform and Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system. Best wishes! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I am looking to put together a development team to implement these ideas. I'm not sure what language we would use. I think a lot of work involving MediaWiki has used Java, but I'm told Ruby on Rails is superior. My own programming experience is mostly limited to implementing data structures in Java and C++ and writing text adventures, macros and such in Visual Basic, so I have some learning to do.

Anyway, if you know anyone who might be interested, please let me know. Having analyzed Wikipedia culture and policy at great length, including how it works in practice, it seems that some contributors are bound not to perform well under such a system. It's similar to how some students don't perform well in a typical public school; they do better in home school or at a private school. It's good to have those alternatives available. If we create a wikisphere of alternative outlets, which operate independently and have their own cultures and systems, but are interconnected more seamlessly than at present, it could be much better than just having this one monolithic entity, Wikipedia, more or less dominate the niche of collaborative online encyclopedia-building. SpiritWorldWiki (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, unfortuantely, have no programming experience. But I do support any effort to make the connection among the wikis more manageable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? You're a real level headed and dedicated editor and you know your way around the Wiki. Mind if I nominate you for adminship? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TenPoundHammer, I greatly appreciate the offer; however, as I had been previously blocked twice, even though the only admin to have ever blocked me subsequently unblocked me and as you can see here has ultimately been quite positive about me, I nevertheless believe that some would still be hard-pressed to support someone with two blocks, regardless of the circumstances. I have seen that time and time again in RfAs. Plus, I have had to contend with pretty determined wiki-aggression from Blueanode, Dannycali, and Eyrian as well as their various proxies and socks that I am deeply concerned that any RfA I might have would turn into something unproductive. Maybe down the road, but there still seems to be some lingering hostility from those users and their related IPs and proxy editors that I am not sure it would be worth it at this time. Plus, I have enough fun working on articles, that I'm not sure I really "need" to be an admin to get something out of Wikipedia. Being able to see deleted articles would be great, but I'm not sure I spend enough time worrying about blocking people or closing AfDs that it would be necessary. Again, I greatly appreciate the kind offer and may reconsider at some point, but I'm still a little hesitant to take the next step just yet. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what was with this edit? Are you changing your vote again? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because you offered to nominate me for adminship, changed your vote in the two AfDs I mentioned, and answered my questions I asked on your talk page, I have decided to move from the neutral section to the support section. Well done getting me to change my mind! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mental note for my coachees... offer to nominate le Grand Icantspellthatlstname for RfA and you'll get his vote ;-) Balloonman (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just that; he answered all of my questions and responded to my suggestions and concerns. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for your blocks... I wouldn't run for Admin until at least a year has passed since your block was lifted... EG wait until at least July... until then, keep your hands clean and let people know who you are (particularly in admin related areas) and people might be willing to overlook your past transgressions... but generally a year is considered the minimum length of time.Balloonman (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For symbolic reasons, I would like wait until around Halloween. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! Same to you!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Newsletter Bot Talk 15:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This newsletter is delivered by a bot to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, - Newsletter Bot Talk 15:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the updates! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the creator of the Alien and Predator Timeline. I hope that the timeline either stays or merges with the Alien and Predator series page. I am going to add you to my friends/helpers list... you may contact me if you don't want your name on the list. But I thank you for participating in the AvP timeline discussion. --Tj999 (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, feel free to add me and good luck with the AfD! Happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the new article I created: 2012 (film). Hopefully this one doesn't go through too much craziness like the AvP timeline. --Tj999 (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start, but I urge you to add some additional sources if you can to be safer. I'll do a quick search myself now. UPDATE: Well, I started to do a search, but it appears your article has been redirected. Anyway, if you find more published sources or as the release comes closer, you should be able to challenge the redirect. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I talked with Erik who redirected the page and it just seems like I should keep a eye on the news about 2012 untill production for the film is for sure. It is all good. Thank you for looking at it and all. --Tj999 (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am always happy to help! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what times of day are you on wikipedia?--Tj999 (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That varies considerably. I don't have any uniform times. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Yeah, I was just wondering. --Tj999 (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go now. Tommorow I am going to try for a lot of edits to help wikipedia's lower class stuff. --Tj999 (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good night, then! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for greeting me into Wikipedia. I actually do have a few questions. I need to know if it is possible to remove a tag on a page after the page has already been corrected. I also need to know how I can help with removing vandalism done to Wikipedia's pages better. Thanks Prepsear (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Yes, if you have fulfilled the concerns for a tag, you may remove the tag. As for vandalism, you can simply remove it or revert the edit. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you bring an article to DRV, as you did here, it is customary to so inform the editor who made the nomination. You should not rely on third parties to do this for you. That is simply good manners. (if you wish to reply, although none is needed, pls do so here.) Eusebeus (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to inform the nominator as the concerns were with others (the three banned accounts) who participated in the discussion, not the nomination itself. The DRV instructions said to inform the admin who closed the discussion, which I of course did. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok pumpkin as long as you are happy with your behaviour and would expect no more from someone toward you, then that's fine. Astonishing how we so rarely can admit our missteps but instead insist upon their being the intended anabasis all along. Eusebeus (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that I wish you would be more apt to admit your "missteps" and not instead tell others how to conduct themselves. If nothing else, I can say with full confidence that all of my edits have been to the benefit of the larger project. The rapid "I don't like it" delete "votes" and nominations I see so often that only turn readers and donors away from Wikipedia are another story. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have made plenty - plenty - of mistakes certainly, but you know it's hard work ruining Wikipedia for everyone so what do you expect? I might not characterise your edit history quite as you do, but then, as you yourself know full well, you are so much more right about all these things than me, so I'll have to simply se niaiser avec la merde and let you carry on lighting up the world with the brilliant glare of your own righteousness. Eusebeus (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rescued many articles from deletion, created numerous articles, uploaded images, welcomed thousands of new users, helped new users out, and much more. I have never come into conflict with any good faith editor. What I don't do is attempt to get other people's good faith edits deleted just because I don't care for what they're interested in and what they're willing to work on. Why anyone would want to do that baffles me. Even editors with whom I have politely disagreed have been able to work with me elsewhere as evidenced here. Am I perfect? Of course not. Have I ever made errors? Sure. Have I had some growing pains early on. Yes. Have I ever intentionally disrupted the project? Absolutely not. Will I ever? Certainly not. I have sought mentorship and frequently communicate with admins and experienced editors whom I respect for advice. And I have learned and followed suggestions given to me in good faith. I will not, however, support unproductive efforts to diminish an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit whose founder says strives to be the sum total of human knowledge whose First pillar calls a combination of general and special encyclopedias as well as almanacs and which relies on thousands of diverse editors and donors to exist, especially when all that time thrown away voting to delete an article that is not a hoax, personal attack, or copy vio actually could be spent finding sources or improving the article. If you would ever like to work together to improve an article, I am always happy to do so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply disagree. You have rescued various articles from deletion that should have been and hopefully will be deleted variously as unencyclopedic cruft, hideous recentism, or otherwise unnotable guff. You steadfastly vote keep on practically every topic that comes up without general regard to the merits of the arguments being made. Your tendency to support your position typically amounts to little more than the robotic gainsaying of our policies with reference to your own peculiar reading of one of the pillars. You have a tendency to comment on every single voice that opposes your own, often making the same argument multiple times as if you feel other editors are so vapid and stupid that they cannot read what you have already plastered on the page. And now we have you trying to game the system via AfD to restore horrendously unencyclopedic cruft; yet you cannot even be bothered to inform the nominator - obviously since you know he will oppose your DRV. All bad Pumpkin. And let me say that, whilst I respect many of your efforts, the apparent virtue you derive from the grand inclusionism of your vision is not quite the warm and fuzzy that you think it is; it collapses standards and challenges credibility. As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that I have taken the liberty of correcting your spelling: inproductive does not exist; unproductive is what you were looking for. Your offer is kind, but as you may know, I am not a keen contirbutor of content, having only rarely done so. I prefer the ruining it for everyone part. Eusebeus (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly welcome to correct any typos I have. I type rather quickly and sometimes do not catch all of them. I cannot take seriously any use of the non-word "cruft". It is an unencyclopedic word not fit for use in a serious discussion. Considering that I have seen some vote "delete" in multiple AfDs in under a minute, I and many others have a hard time believing that it is humanly possible for the article as well as the discussion to have been read in their entirety so quickly. Attempting to have an article with real world notability and scholarly sources resurrected after an AfD in which multiple socks participated is hardly "gaming the system." Why shouldn't we have a new discussion when in the original MULTIPLE banned accounts participated? As I said, I would have myself argued more had Eyrian not posted immediately after me. He however has been harassing me (as he did others, which is why he is banned in addition to the sockpuppetry) and my mentor admin Chaser suggested I avoid/ignore him as much as possible. Thus, I and others were turned off from the original discussion. As it occurred months ago, a re-look at the article would hardly hurt the project any. Why not have a new AfD then rather than just a restore or the article? I did not contact the nominator, because I saw no need to do so based on the instructions, which said to contact the closer, which I did. I have only once else started a DRV and the impression I had was that we just need to discuss with the closing admin. If I am missing somewhere on here where it says to also notify the nominator, then okay, my bad, but I honestly do not see it. Anyway, I do not care if blogsters or comedians want to mock Wikipedia for some of the articles we have. These articles bring in donors and editors who benefit Wikipedia in many ways and actually make the project an even more valuable resource than it otherwise could be. I am here to build a comprehensive encyclopedia and to spread as much help and appreciation to anyone else who is also here for that purpose. I really hope you are not serious about wanting to ruin it for everyone. By the way, I may not respond for the next hours not out of a ignoring of you, but I am going to spend some time visiting with my mother. So, have a nice afternoon for now. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• bows* Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Always happy to extend kindness to good faith editors. Happy Editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble uploading images on to my user page and other articles. I was really hoping to add one of those "This user likes this and this" captions with a picture. Sorry if I am being a burden, as this is my second time asking for help. Thanks, Prepsear (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean new images or already established userboxes? To upload images, please see Wikipedia:Upload. For userboxes, please see Wikipedia:Userboxes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know there is someone else with good common sense! ChessCreator (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]