User talk:Gwalla/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Thanks!

Was introduced to the site by User:Schneelocke, as I recall. Doing well, thanks- work (a few part-time jobs, with good people) and music keep busy. You maintain an interesting LiveJournal. Good to hear from you! Schissel : bowl listen 02:40, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Possessives

In truth, I wasn't actually sure about 'sites'. Given the confused nature of apostrophes, it could well be either. --maru 02:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC) (BTW, may I suggest you clean up your talk page? It is cumbersome to navigate.)

I'm quite sure that the only exception to the rule that possessives use an apostrophe is "its". At the very least, an otherwise unexceptional noun like "site" wouldn't get an exception.

And yes, I should have cleaned up my talkpage long ago. I need to get one of those round tuits I keep hearing about... — Gwalla | Talk 02:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh- but whatever you do, don't get one of the square ones; they leak. --maru 03:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Comparison tôyô-jôyô

• Good work in merging the articles. Couldn't have done it better, thanks. Ben talk contr 08:35, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Lockergnomes?

Greets:

Just read your review of Lockergnomes over on the forks page. I was wondering if you felt this was an OK use of the text from Wikipedia. It bothers me that they claim copyright along the bottom as their own. with no mention of Wikipedia except for the source link.

Thanks, -drmike

Honestly, I'm not sure. They're borderline. AFAIK, there's no requirement for mirrors to mention Wikipedia specifically (although it's nice), as long as they link to the article on Wikipedia or otherwise provide proper attribution to the various authors, and as long as they link to the GFDL. However, claiming copyright on articles lifted from Wikipedia doesn't seem kosher (AIUI, copyright is technically held by each contributor for their changes). I was hoping somebody who understood GFDL issues better than I do would be able to make the call. — Gwalla | Talk 21:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Futaba Channel

You wrote that "non-Japanese people are not allowed to post to the image boards" of Futaba Channel. What makes you say so, and how is this policy enforced? I thought that the reson for the creation of English language boards was the language barrier. It would be nice if you could elaborate in the article. --SKopp 08:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It's what I've gathered from talking to people on 4chan, iichan, etc. It's not hard to enforce: certain blocks of IP numbers belong to certain countries (or at least certain groups in certain countries). They just ban all IPs that don't originate in Japan. They might be a little more lax than that, and from what I've been told they occasionally relax the bans. AIUI it's to prevent American users from overrunning the BBS and posting only in English, but I've never talked to the admins there so I can't say for certain what their reasoning is. — Gwalla | Talk 00:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, with a definitely non-Japanese IP, I at least get to the posting form, don't want to try it out now. But if that's so, ok, then we should keep it in the article. --SKopp 01:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey

I'm Jake on the Killroy and Tina boards. I just thought it was sort of cool to stumble across you on this other end of the Internet, too.

... *waves* Mr. Billion 18:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Small world. — Gwalla | Talk 20:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Soft redirects

I notice you have been editing a number of pages with the comment "soft redir", which insert a link directing the user to a Wiktionary article. (Ex.: È¥¿, É»’). However, no corresponding article appears at Wiktionary. Is this a technical issue, or are you planning on creating entries at Wiktionary? --Tabor 19:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, nevermind. It appears to be a two step process and they work when you are finished. I see now. --Tabor 19:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• • My later edits with the comment "charset unmangle" should be redirecting those to the appropriate Chinese character articles on Wiktionary. I had to do it in two steps because the first change is {{subst:wi}}, which doesn't let me provide a different title for the destination. The final destinations should exist (I checked, but I might have missed one). — Gwalla | Talk 19:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Shōwa disambiguation

I accidentally left the Shōwa era (daikaiju eiga) link under places when reordering that page, but you moved it into the Shōwa era (正和) section? I don't know anything about big monster movies, but I take it the Shōwa reference refers to the period ruled by the Shōwa (昭和) emperor (1926 - 1989), not the era that ran from 1312 to 1317? I've moved the link to that section for now. JeroenHoek 10:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. Thanks. — Gwalla | Talk 20:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to thank you for all your help in revising xiangqi so far. Also, I've responded to some of your comments after researching some of it. Be sure to check out the FAC here to see what some other Wikipedians are saying! Thanks a lot for all your help again. Flcelloguy 17:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

ANZACS Film

Gwalla, I appoligize for placing a CSD on this article. It was a poor choice on my part. Sorry. func(talk) 00:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. Just be more careful in the future, 'kay? WP:CSD is pretty strict about what qualifies as a candidate for speedying. — Gwalla | Talk 00:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

Thank you Gwalla for letting me know about the {{db}}... Didn't know it would be such a problem. Thought they would understand. But I have changed it now.
Hey Gwalla, maybe you can help me with something else too... I am working on an article about Genseiryu karate, but it takes time since there are two sides to the story. That is to say, there are two groups that have a story. We (our side) recognize that, but the other group doesn't. They only see their point of view. Now there is somebody, named Peter Lee who finds it necessary to delete ALL our text on the article that is about OUR side of the story. He then claims to have changed the work of a vandalist to make sure a moderator won't notice it. On his user page he also claims to be the "official contact person of GENSEIRYU in Europe", which is not true.
I am working on a version that tells the neutral point of view of both sides. I will make two overlay pages on the article where each party can have a say. He can have his say on this after it's finished, but he won't stop deleting the text. Over and over again, he keeps going on. Other moderators have corrected it also a few times now, but he won't stop. He knows that if this continues, eventually the article will be totally deleted and blocked by a moderator that gets fed up with this, that is what he wants and that is what happened to the Dutch article. He wants to see NO text, rather than anything about our side of the story.
Now, I have put a WIP sign on the article, but still he does not respect that and keeps deleting great parts of the article. How can he be stopped? Block???
I do understand that you can't really know who is telling the truth in this matter, but simply look at it the Wikipedia way: he is deleting large amount of texts that others put in. We don't do that! It's then easy to recognise the 'bad guys'... Please DON'T block the article, that means that they win! Thank you for your help! -- MarioR 01:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He's been blocked from editing for violating the Three Revert Rule. I can see where he's coming from, as the version he's reverting inserts blatantly POV assertions, but he's going at it in just about the worst possible way. Hopefully he will have calmed down by the time the ban expires (in half a day) and reads the message I've left on his talkpage. If problems persist, there's the Dispute Resolution process, which is the proper way to deal with this sort of thing.

I'd like to point out that settling this in a civil manner will require some effort on your part as well. Please try working towards a more NPOV version in the meantime. — Gwalla | Talk 05:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again Gwalla! Yes, I am working on a NPOV version, but Peter Lee is making this impossible because he is moving back and forth the article from Genseiryu to GENSEIRYU and editing (that is to say vandalising) the text etc. etc. He is just doing this in the hope to get the article removed in its totallity, that is what he and his friends did on the Dutch Wikipedia as well!

The block on him is only for 24 hours and since today Wikipedia was down, I have only a few hours left to do this... Maybe another block for 24 hours??? That would make it more easy for me to come up with a NPOV version... By the way, I have tried to talk to him in a civil manner, but he won't listen. I am a nice man, willing to listen and always willing to talk about a problem, but I have already done more effort than anyone would do in this matter. He is absolutely impossible. Every word I use, backed up by evidence or not, he manages to turn 180° around against me. With this kind of arrogance, there is no way to discuss anything with him... --MarioR 21:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I only blocked him for 12 hours. And I'm not going to tack on an extra day-long block: I'd be the one violating policy in that case. I can't block just because somebody asks, no matter how well-intentioned. If he violates the 3RR again, I may block him again (for 24 hours, as he no longer has the excuse of being unaware of that policy). That's all I can do. If you want to address the edit war itself, however, please follow the Dispute Resolution process. — Gwalla | Talk 23:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should also point out that gloating about his being blocked is very counterproductive. — Gwalla | Talk 23:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must admit I had to look it up, but here it is: to gloat: To feel or express great, often malicious, pleasure or self-satisfaction. I don't know where you got this idea from. I merely stated this in the summary so people would finally realise the actions that are going on from his side, but you must have misinterpreted this. He is calling my changes 'vandalism', but HE is the one deleting large portions of text and replacing it with his own! How do you think that makes me feel??? Anyway, sorry and thanks for the tip. I will not 'gloat' in the summaries anymore. --MarioR 00:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Found your message on my talk page. I am terribly sorry about that. Got a little bit carried away. I should not have called him a lier and I should not have compared him with Pinocchio. But then again, Mr. Lee has been calling me (directly and indirectly) a lier where he is the one making up false stories and accuses innocent people of unlawful activities, on Wikipedia and outside Wikipedia. What would you do? Anyway, it will not happen again! After all I am a civilised person. --MarioR 14:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: Isn't saying "So please Mario, what is your next slander?" also a personal attack??? At least I find this very insulting... (--> Peter Lee's Talk)

And "As always, you are an embaressment to Genseiryu. I wonder when you will ever stop this slander."? Isn't this a personal attack? This is extremely offensive!!! I would like to remove it myself, but I think that is the job of a modulator... (--> Genseiryu/Butokukai)

Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution, Mario. I'm not going to be your bodyguard. — Gwalla | Talk 22:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not asking you to do that Gwalla... Sorry to bother you. Won't bother you anymore... Regards, --MarioR 22:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gwalla, In the past you adviced Mario Roering to make an NPOV article about Genseiryu. He did that and Peter Lee tried to delete evrything. He of course didn't succeed because myself Mario and Moderators put back what he deleted. His new tactic is to change everything in the article which is divided between a NPOV part and 2 parts where he can ad his comments or his side of the story even we know it is not true we give him his right to give his opinion. But he is trying to start again an edit war because he is changing even our part and the NPOV part. He asked Waerth by email to delete everything about Genseiryu. So it is clear he doesn't want to hear other peoples opinion so if somebody has some he rather would like to be deleted ecverything to hide that there are many people disagree with his stories. I hope you will keep on looking and advsiing what to do to keep our article on the Wikipedia website. Best regards, --212.127.137.2 14:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No admin is going to delete the article just because he asks, so don't even worry about that. They might if he was the only editor, but he's obviously not. POV is not a criterion for speedy deletion. The best way to deal with this is to go through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. — Gwalla | Talk 00:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Japan rv

Hi; since you rv'd 58.88.206.234's last edit on Japan, you might want to consider 58.88.209.239's prior edit too. Presumably the same person. ;) Mark¹ 04:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good catch. Reverted. — Gwalla | Talk 05:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletes

Thanks for your deletes in the Adam Kritzman-related entries. I was fortunate enough to be on the Recent Changes when they all went up; it was nice to see something go down in flames without having to go through a lengthy VfD. jglc | t | c 20:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No prob. Actualy, looking at the deletion history, it looks like you accidentally recreated it! Apparently, another admin speedied it while you were adding the vfd template. — Gwalla | Talk 20:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WCW

Thanks for your effort on the WCW article. It's now considerably less POV, and flows better as well. — Gwalla | Talk 17:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. If I have time I'll take a crack at the later sections. --Chrysaor 07:28, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Response

Yes the page history does credit my contributions, but i lost all credit when my page was merged and the history to it was deleted. Now that page which is 90% what i wrote does not even include my name, which frustrates me and makes me question whether to make any more contributions. Is it fair that a page which i write someone else takes credit for. --Aslan's Mane 22:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which article was merged and where? It's against Wikipedia's rules to merge an article and delete the history. — Gwalla | Talk 23:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article I completly wrote SeeDs was merged with a much shorter Seed article. When this happened the history of my article was erased, thus I recieved no credit for any of my work. My addition accounts for the vast majority of the article. --Aslan's Mane 22:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just checked SeeDs, and it doesn't seem to have been deleted. It was just turned into a redirect. Your edits are still there in the page history. The editor who merged the information into SeeD said in his edit summary that it was from SeeDs, so attribution has been preserved in this case. — Gwalla | Talk 23:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again (warez)

Please don't delete the article again. I blanked and protected it to avoid the repeated recreation issue that we're seeing. This only works if other admins respect that. Kelly Martin 05:25, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see that you'd protected it. — Gwalla | Talk 05:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wrestling Tag Team Championships/Harley Race

Hello,

I noticed that there is some confusion as to some tag team titles that Harley Race held that you edited. Harley held the NWA Central States Tag Team Titles, not the NWA Central States World Tag Team Titles. They were two separate titles and I just have not had time to do the title history for the NWA Central States Tag Team Titles yet. Also, he held the NWA Florida Tag Team Championship, not the NWA Florida World Tag Team Championship. I corrected both of them and I know they are confusing, so here is a heads up on what I did to minimize the confusion.

I have gone to each wrestler entry and linked the World Tag Team Titles they held, so if you run across one that is not linked, it is not a World Tag Team Title. That should help you decide which version it is in the future.

I appreciate your edits and hope this clears up the tag team title confusion. I know...it is very confusing and I wasn't sure which version the Central States titles were for awhile. Anyway, I corrected the Harley Race edits but am not sure if you changed anybody else, so please change them if you did.

Thank you very much for helping edit the pro wrestlers! Please contact me with any questions!

Phatcat68 | Talk 09:51, 17 Jun 2005 (US ET)

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying. The NWA titles are very confusing—perhaps you could add a little explanation to the NWA article? — Gwalla | Talk 16:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • I am glad I was able to explain that to you. Yes, the NWA titles are very confusing because of the regions and the promoters all wanting to be in control of it years ago. I have added to the World Titles section on the NWA page a better explanation of the NWA World Tag Team Titles. Excellent suggestion!

Thanks again! Phatcat68 | Talk 15:33, 17 Jun 2005 (US ET)

Odic force

Hi Gwalla. I tried to answer your question about my reversion of the link at Talk:Qi. Cheers, Fire Star 00:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks. — Gwalla | Talk 02:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

The nomination did very much surprise me, but I'm pleased (and intend to be a responsible admin of course.) Schissel : bowl listen 22:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reminding personal attack and Civility At that time I was so frustrated by seeing edit of User:24.69.255.205, User:68.14.62.73, User:136.142.21.236 even after your reverts. -Bijee 02:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One of the secrets to getting the most out of your Wikipedia experience is Wikipedia:staying cool when the editing gets hot, and not taking edits personally. It seems likely that the current discussion will lead to a more accurate, better sourced article that we have now, even if the liubo hypothesis is discredited in the process. This can only be a good thing. — Gwalla | Talk 02:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why Chaturanga is shown as happend in 6th/7th century, When quarrel between Kauravas and Pandavas in Mahabharata epic started because of Chaturanga game (or Shatranj, they are synonyms to me). And we know Mahabharata happend before Gautama Buddha (and may be after Indus Valley Civilization) -Bijee 03:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amaunator

Done. I added a FR-stub template. — Vrykolaka (talk · contribs)

Tag team

What was the purpose of making a copypaste of tag team at Tag Team wrestling and then replacing the former with a POV (and inaccurate: tag teams are not usually considered stables, although they may be affiliated with stables) stub without an edit summary or a note on the talk page? I can't see any reason for a breakout. Also, "Tag Team wrestling" is a bad title, as "tag team" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. — Gwalla | Talk 20:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) -- Taken from User talk:Paulley

Sorry, i ended up being late for work and never got to finish it properly, thats why it had no summary or msg on its talk page for which i apologise.

The current tag team page doesnt look itno the reasons why tag team are created, it doesnt even clearly establish what a tag team is it looks more at the rules of tag team matches and not of team itself... tag team wrestling has an article (if i had a chance i would have moved that to "tag team wrestling (game)")... I still believe the article should be broken out, but i will make sure if i do break the article out to place a note on the talk page and such --- Paulley 11:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the solution is to add information to the existing article, not to split it. "Tag team wrestling (game)" isn't a good title, because it makes people think you're talking about a board game, video game, card game, etc. (and besides, it's not really a game, it's a kind of performance). I don't see the need for separate articles on tag teams and what they do.

Also, be careful with your assertions. I don't think there's any question that some tag teams are made up of wrestlers who aren't doing well as singles, but the way you wrote it seemed to assert that all are, or at least that it's the usual way of things; you'd need to back that up with some sources. — Gwalla | Talk 00:02, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tag Team Wrestling is an article on a game and thats what i planned on moving, your right it would have been better to add to the article but you must admid the adding of titles and match types have made that aticle very large already --- Paulley 28 June 2005 20:18 (UTC)

m:immediatism

21:18 Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments (diff; hist) . . Gwalla (Talk) (→Delete - starting off a list of arguments with an accusation of shortsightedness is insulting)

Do you really find it insulting? I thought it was a normal statement for one side of the political spectrum, and I actually sympathize with it. — Sebastian (Please reply here, I'll watch this page for a while.) 15:43, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Personally, I dislike all of those labels; they turn differences of opinion into partisan politics. Looking at the link now, it doesn't seem so bad. I think I was in a bad mood after dealing with some voters of the keep-everything-no-matter-how-pointless variety. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 05:11 (UTC)

Bart Kosko

Apologies again for being a know-nothing noob, I notice you're a USC man and thought you might look over Bart Kosko and check it's OK. Alf 28 June 2005 16:52 (UTC)

Was a USC man. Haven't been there for years, and I don't know much about the electrical engineering department. Still, I've heard the guy's name before, not just around campus, and Google results tend to bear out the claim that he's a major figure in fuzzy logic. Looks fine to me. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, semi-clueless newbie here. Thanks for fixing my Andrew Bird page (surname wasn't capitalized). Not sure what I did - or didn't do - to make that happen? NickBurns 3 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)

You probably didn't capitalize the name when you typed it into the Go box, if that's how you arrived at the blank page. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 05:04 (UTC)

Cabal

You write "BTW, accusations of an evil Wikipedia conspiracy are unlikely to make people take your arguments seriously". May I (humbly) suggest that the corollary is that the "people" who will not take you (i.e. me) seriously (certainly wherre VfDs are concerned) are the Cabal, who weren't going to listen in the frist place. At present, it seems to me that VfDs appear to be being ... heavily policed ... by a group of ardent anti-sock-puppeteers, who (from their postings) seem to find that everyone not of their mind is either a newbie like me, or a sock-puppet, or the author of the article under criticism (or his/her lab-mates, whose views "don't count". Regrettably most of my (limited) knowledge is already on Wiki, contributed my others. VfD-ing was my attempt to serve some purpose, and keep the Wiki tidy for the research I wanted to do. Perhaps I would be better going away, since my posting levels will never entitle me to more than marginal and grudged membership of the outer circles. Thank you for listening to this rant. Please feel free to delete it. As I do not know how to alter my sig to include the "Hit this to Talk to me", I can't offer you the right of reply. As I say, please delete after reading. --Simon Cursitor 4 July 2005 07:24 (UTC)

CSD Proposal 3-B

You voted or commented on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A or both. I have proposed a revised version, at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. This version is intended to address objections made by many of those oppsoed to 3-A or 3-B. The revised propsal refers explicitly and directly to the criteria at WP:MUSIC. If you have not already done so, please examine the revised proposal and vote on it also. Thank you. DES 6 July 2005 05:15 (UTC)

Thanks for rv

Thank you Gwalla for reverting the latest vandalist action of Peter Lee on my user page! Greetings, -- MarioR 8 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)

Re: Encouraging webcomic creators to expand articles on their comics

No worries. In every email I've sent out, I've specifically asked them not to expand their own article. Normally I link them to http://www.websnark.com/archives/2004/11/a_modest_webcom.html as ways of an explanation, and recomend that they post a request to their fans to do it. - Lifefeed 12:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, good. Thanks for clearing that up! — Gwalla | Talk 17:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Azumanga revert

Gwalla, I was the one who made a lot of additions to the main characters page of Azumanga Daioh a while back. My feeling is that the contributions were not incorrect, and they helped readers get more insight into the manga's great characters. In addition, there are a few statements in the current version that I feel are misinterpretations or overreaches, yet I left them in respect for the previous collaborator's point of view.

May I ask why you decided to revert back to the older version? Especially when I had not editing anything out, rather mainly made additions?

I'm sorry to have to leave this on your page, couldn't find discussion for it on the main article. I'd appreciate to hear your views.

Your addition was "She is usually compared to the equally idiotic and popular GIR from Invader Zim for obivious reasons.", right? For one thing, she doesn't seem to be "usually" compared to GIR—in fact, that's the first time I've seen that comparison made and I'm no stranger to discussion of Azumanga. Also, it seems to be entirely POV, and "for obvious reasons" is a weasel term. — Gwalla | Talk 02:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Eek, misunderstanding. My additions were the extensive character descriptions before that one. The one that you bring up, I agree, should be deleted, 'for obvious reasons'.

Thanks for the reply... can you address my additions please? Here is the link so you don't have to dig through things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azumanga_Daioh&diff=prev&oldid=18047477

Ah, okay. I think what happened there was I saw the addition to Kagura, thought it was kind of POV, and hit rollback without realizing that you'd made a series of edits mostly of good quality (or forgetting that rollback reverses to the first version not submitted by the last user, not just reverting the last change). I'm sorry about that. Feel free to redo those changes. — Gwalla | Talk 03:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Will do, and I'll take another look at that Kagura passage. Sorry about not signing, don't have a wiki membership yet. Thanks for your time.

Exploitation vs just plain bad movies

Hi,

About the VfD for Z-movie. I do not think an exploitation movie is the same as any bad/cheap movie. From the article, "Exploitation films typically sacrifice traditional notions of artistic merit for the sensational display of some topic about which the audience may be curious, or have some prurient interest.". For example, movies such as Cannibal Holocaust are exploitation movies in that they directly exploit the taste of the audience for graphic violence and gore. Even some successful movies can be exploitation, such as Farenheit 9/11, which played on very partisan themes without caring much about artistic motives (although it is also a documentary, but my point is only that exploitation is not the same as low-distribution). This is not necessarily a bad thing, just a description of the aim of the movie. Now, movies such as Plan 9 from Outer Space were not made with that goal: Ed Wood did try to make a genuinely good movie. It just didn't work out. Many low-budget B-movies are also made with at least the goal of being artistically valid. UnHoly 04:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

GWALLA!!!!!!

Hello Gwalla, It's Moe Epsilon, please stop merging the Hardcore champions list into the title article itself, it deserves it's own article so please leave it be!!!! — Moe ε 06:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Please explain why the title changes are a separate topic from the title. Especially when the title's article barely has any information in it. — Gwalla | Talk 06:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey! I found this through our mutual LJ friend grassynoel. Jokermage 23:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

IMDb troll is back

The anonymous editor who's been causing grief at the IMDb article is back under a new IP address and doesn't seem to realize that Speedy Keep means the issue is resolved. It may be necessary to protect the IMDb article from further editing for awhile as this troll doesn't seem to get the message. Please reply on my talk page, thanks! 23skidoo 15:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Little April

You deleted a page called "Little april" in July. A redirection page called "Little April" still exists, pointing to the nonexistent article. -EdgarAllanToe 15:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight

As a member of WikiProject Comics, I thought you might be interested in the Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight we have set up. Please feel free to vote on the articles listed, although bear in mind that a vote for a particular article means you are pledging to help improve the article. The goal of the collaboration is to improve articles to Featured Article status, as we feel Comics is under-represented in that area. Thanks for your help. Steve block talk 15:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

What happened to 'body parts slang'?

What happened to this page? It was deleted, but there was no concensus for deletion on its AFD page. Nevermind I see the 2nd AFD for it. -Andrew 05:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC against Roylee

Hi, Gwalla. Finally it's there: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roylee. Endorse or comment as you see fit; your input would be appreciated. — mark ✎ 10:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE ASSIST, WRESTLING FANS OF WIKIPEDIA

Me and the soon to be departing (hopefully not) Moe Epsilon are setting up a project to deal with the music of this great business. It will be Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of wrestling. Join if you are remotely interested - every little helps! Thanks. Kingfisherswift 17:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Aikido

By the by - I just put aikido up for featured article status. Appreciate any help addressing any comments that might arise during the process. Cheers Peter Rehse 04:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD process as per Avalon's AfD

I'm curious as to how True.mcdohl did not follow the AfD process correctly. Following the process described in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion, he put the AfD tag on the top of the article (as 71.13.152.248), opened the deletion discussion page, and then added a paragraph (as True.mcdohl) to that page explaining his rationale. It seems that Kjoonlee was the one who added Avalon to the deletion log page.

True.mcdohl is obviously unfamiliar with the AfD process, and he created his own Wikipedia username after adding the AfD tag to the Avalon article; his actions certainly caused confusion, but I'd be surprised if his nomination was dismissed as being in bad faith.

Beyond that, I'd just like to clear up what part of his nomination was out of process. Staedtler 20:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, he added the paragraph after discussion had been opened by someone else, and did not claim within it that he was the one who opened the AfD (although it was kind of implied). I don't think it was in bad faith, but it did start things off on the wrong foot. — Gwalla | Talk 06:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, the first person in the AfD's history was True.mcdohl, so I assumed he created it. I don't know enough about the technical side of Wikipedia. I just want to get this AfD over with. :-P Staedtler 18:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding >>1-san

For reasons that remain unknown (yes even to me) I have taken an interest in this AfD and took the time to add some content to the article in the hopes of saving it. For some reason the reference to the Japanese Wikipedia was not showing up, while the exact same one on the AfD page was, so I copied it over and it is fine now. I suspect that there was a typo involved. Anyway besides the external links and extra section I would also like to add those two books you mentioned as references. So I was hoping you could give me a bit more info on them. If I can I will try to find them in my local Japanese library (or just Make a few notes at Maruzen) and put in the references. Thanks, Colincbn 08:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

N/M I think I found them. I will be more specific in the references and add the page number of >>1-san's entry as soon as I can. Colincbn 09:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for saving >>1-san's bacon! Sorry I couldn't be more help. — Gwalla | Talk 21:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Chess-like

The problem with the name "chess-like" is that it's unclear which games are chess-like. For instance, I could make a plausible case for gipf being a chess-like game. I was unaware of Andreas's rename, but I think it should have gone via WP:CFD so that people could have pointed this out. "Chaturanga family" sounds a lot better. The key here is your statement that "some scholars believe the predecessor was from China". Is this an actual historical controversy, or is it generally accepted that Chaturanga is the ancestor, but there are some people who disagree? >Radiant< 09:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a genuine historical controversy. It used to be generally assumed that Chaturanga was the predecessor of the chess/xiangqi/shogi family of games, although there was always doubt because its actual existence is not attested in the archaeological record (it's mentioned in some writings, but nobody's found a board, IIRC). The Chinese origin theory is stil I think a minority, but they have a good case, pointing to mentions of xiangqi that predate the commonly accepted dates for Chaturanga's existence.

I feel kind of bad about all this, because if I'd been paying attention to my watchlist I would have brought this up in CFD and there would be less hassle for everyone. — Gwalla | Talk 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• So what this actually needs is a clear name, perhaps something like "historical predecessors of Chess" or somesuch? Or we can once more call it "Chaturanga game family" and put a note at the top of the cat that some historians dispute this. >Radiant< 08:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Predecessors" would be incorrect: shogi, xiangqi, etc. are contemporaneous with chess (they're still widely played). Historical relatives of chess, perhaps? — Gwalla | Talk 16:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Reasonable. Another option I came up with is "Chaturanga/Xiangqi family". I'd suggest you pick either thator "historical relatives of" or something similar, and repopulate that. >Radiant< 07:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaturanga / Shaturanga / Shatranj

I am totally confused by them :) So should these 3 be merged into 1? Maybe the other pages can be redirects Voorlandt 16:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Chaturanga is an Indian game thought to be a precursor to chess (and possibly other national chesslike games, such as shogi and xiangqi). It's precise rules are a matter of debate. Shatranj is a Persian game with known rules thought to be derived from Chaturanga, and known to be a direct precursor to Western chess. When Western names are used for the pieces, Shatranj is also called medieval chess. "Shaturanga" seems to be the result of somebody conflating the names. — Gwalla | Talk 22:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Regarding this, meeting 2 criteria (or "x" numbers of criteria, for that matter) does not automatically make it qualify for inclusion. All the sources I see are youtube pages, myspace pages, or music download sites. I just thought I'd let you know to get some discussion going. —« ANIMUM » 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

They have a profile on All Music Guide. That should cover #1. And while WP:BAND does not automatically make it qualify for inclusion, demonstrating that it is notable by those criteria means it cannot be speedied for lack of assertion of notability. It may still go through the full AfD process. — Gwalla | Talk 23:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So-called Iwama style

"So-called" was there to warn the reader that "Iwama style" is not the official name of a style or organization, but rather merely a descriptive term. However, I'm not attached to it being written with so-called, so I'll leave it alone; you can restore it or leave it as you like, or perhaps another editor will have a stronger opinion. Bradford44 17:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)