User talk:Townlake/Archive 2

Your neutral !vote in my RfA...

While not trying to sway you, I would like to tell you that I had no intention of making my answer say "becuase I can" between the lines. I refactored my comment in the "Discussion" section to better reflect what I mean; I'd appreciate it if you could take a look, even if you don't change your !vote at all. Thanks for your time, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Yours is far from the worst over-personalized page I've seen (roux's page has elements that actively render my WP navigation unusable, for example), but candidly it was hard to navigate your Talk when I was poking around, largely because of your formatting choices. I respect the "let's have fun with this" attitude; I think you and I simply disagree on what function the talk page serves. Reasonable people, of course, can disagree with me, and far be it from me to dictate how you format your account's Talk page - mine is one opinion in a sea of zillions. All the best. Townlake (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

...oh. It just dawned on me what you meant by the first part of your answer. :) I will try to work on this; I didn't know that my formatting was even a problem to anyone. Thanks and cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not an oppose-worthy problem or a "gotcha!" type issue... I intentionally don't use the WP default skin because I know the one I use (Modern) will highlight formatting issues that other RfA regulars probably won't be able to see but general users might. I do appreciate and admire your interest in addressing my concern - cheers indeed. Townlake (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and there is my problem right now...what is wrong with my formatting? :) I.e. what needs to be changed? I can't tell with Monobook... =/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Needs to be changed", of course, is subjective. That said... when I go into your Talk archives, the navigation is counter-intuitive - in recent months you've taken to sub dividing your archives with navigation in a tiny orange box in the lower right corner of the screen in tiny type. Why? Your older archives don't have this and they're easier to explore. In general, the top of your Talk page has too many layers of stuff to sift through, and because you've chosen dark shades for the primary navigation, using it isn't especially easy til you're used to it. (Modern skin's top bars are black and dark blue with bright white text, so your stylistic choice there stands out.) The black-on-grey text in the actual discussion area is peculiar as well; no problem when my laptop's at my desk, but if it's not plugged in and the monitor's in energy saver mode, reading can become frustrating. It's basically stuff like that; again nothing oppose-worthy, just stuff that makes other users' ability to use the talk page secondary to your own design satisfaction. (And I don't say that to be a jerk, nor do I expect you to make immediate changes; I do assume you'd want me to be direct in sharing my perspective.) Townlake (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense now. I really had no intention of designing it to make it a lot harder to read...:) Thanks for your comments; I will attempt to work on them as soon as I can. (Especially the archives; when looking at it yesterday after your comments, that kinda dawned on me!) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So it has been awhile, but what do you think? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, sorry about the delay, I was out of town over the weekend. Thanks for asking my opinion! I did some clicking around and the navigation is noticeably more intuitive than I remember it - you've obviously done a lot of work on both your User and Talk pages. Only glitch I noticed right away is there's an overlap at the top of your User page where the Military History userbox overlaps the wiki-banner-ad. I'll look around a little more later and let you know if I have any other advice, but so far so good. Townlake (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Argh...are you using IE or something? In FF it's perfect for me... :/

And BTW - I know that only the format of my user and talk pages has been changed - it is my intention to get to the other pages, though it may be a little bit. ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks a lot

WikiThanks

Townhouse, Thanks a million for taking a couple of minutes to comment on the request for comment at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. BTW, there was a direct question about your comments. Ikip (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this - the questions re my comments were already thoroughly addressed elsewhere on the Talk page, so in the interest of bandwidth I won't be adding to those conversations. Townlake (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I always like to have a heads up myself, thank you for the response. Ikip (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you deleted so many info on Sin Seno no hay paraiso

I've worked on it since the novel begin and many people enter to know ratings and everything detailed imdb has not nothing about it. So don't delete this things I almost fainted when I saw it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siachoquero (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your note! We both want the same thing - for the article to be as good as possible. I have asked for comments here from the Wikipedia Television project; I am worried the article is too long right now, but we will see what other people think, and if I am going overboard I am sure they will tell me. Townlake (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when prioviding so much information is not apropriate and must be deleted cause it's too long ho hell I won't edit snaything not bring information bye won't edit anything and could it be possible to delete my account? I'm not going to bring any single info about telemundo novelas bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siachoquero (talk • contribs)

bring back sin senos no hay paraiso as it was

please bring back as it was until you make changes.

the parts of Crew, Cast, Original broadcast titels and ratings this parts bring back

or then just delete all my edits there and my account too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siachoquero (talk • contribs)

I know you would prefer that this article contain all the details you find interesting, but there are very good reasons for keeping articles short and focused. Wikipedia is intended to be a source of information, but not one that includes every possible detail on every subject. I would suggest that you read through these pages - WP:NOT and WP:MOSTV - and I hope you will decide you want to continue cooperating with other Wikipedia editors to make articles as good as we can make them together. Townlake (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

nO i LIKED MY ARTICLE AS IT WAS PLEAASE

IF IT IS POSSIBLE DELETE ALL MY EDITS EVERYWHERE AND THEN MY ACCOUNT TOO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siachoquero (talk • contribs)

I had the same idea

I temporarily voted a neutral in that RFA. Question 6 does sound like block evasion to me as I mentioned in the RFA. Ipromise (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been involved in a couple situations this week where multi-account, sock-suspicious issues have come up, and the answer struck me as a bit too laissez-faire. I'm thankful Somno added some thoughts at the RFA. Townlake (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lycopersicon syndrome

It was pointed out in the AfD that Marcello Malpighi, identified as the discoverer of the alleged syndrome, in fact lived before tomatoes were in widespread use in Italy, and therefore could not have discovered it. The earliest discovered cookbook with tomato recipes was published in Naples in 1692, two years before Malpighi's death. Tomatoes are common enough that their implication in heterochromia, caused even by smelling the veggie, would have been noticed by now. This is why the article seemed to me to be a "blatant and obvious" hoax, and a parody of the standard-model public-healthist food scare: therefore hoax, therefore vandalism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thank you for weighing in at my RFA, and for revisiting the discussion. As I said in the RFA, I plan to start out slowly with speedy deletions and the use of the tools in general, so hopefully that helps your peace of mind. ;) In regards to your question about condoning block evasion, it was only after the RFA finished that I found a good link for what I was describing: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Clean start under a new name. Not something I've done myself, but something that can be OK for editors to do. Somno (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Townlake, belated post holiday thanks for your support and nice comments in my RFA, which passed by an embarrassingly wide margin. There's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here. WereSpielChequers 17:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadya Suleman

Since you commented the article in it's first AfD, it has since come under a second AfD. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on this one as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadya Suleman (2nd nomination). Thanks! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm going to leave this AFD alone, no reason for me to pile on, result won't be deletion. Townlake (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time anyway! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, I'd just like to say thanks for your encouraging words. I have decided to leave my options open now and am on a wikibreak rather than fully retired. I feel though that now might be a good time to concentrate on other more important things in my life, as much as Wikipedia is a great project, there are things that mean more to me. Thanks again for your kind words. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coaching record of John Beilein

Note my reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coaching record of John Beilein.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted and replied. Thanks for the heads up. Townlake (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full cast list of Flashdance

Please consider changing your vote to a merge. It would actually fulfill GFDL needs and not be needless administria. I ran WikiBlame and was unable to find evidence the material being discussed was split from the main article in the past year. Thus deletion would the edit history for the information would be lost. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the message, but since the "Full cast list" is just data copied from another source in the first place, I'm no more concerned with losing the edit history here than I would be with any other AFD candidate. The data can be easily recreated in the main article by consulting something like IMDB. Townlake (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Verano de Amor

Hi there. I noticed you PROD'ed the Verano de Amor article a little bit ago. I'm inclined to think it should stay, as one of the lead actors (Dulce Maria) was one of the leads in the Rebelde telenovela / RBD singing group, and this show has received a fair amount of Spanish-language media coverage primarily for that reason. I'm going to look for better sourcing for it over the weekend and will leave the PROD notice alone until I can do that; I consider the WP:FICT proposed guideline generally confusing, and I'm not here to claim anything resembling default notability. Just wanted to pass along a friendly heads-up that I'll be working on establishing show-specific notability, and if I decline the PROD, this'll be why. Thanks - Townlake (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to that. There was a huge walled garden of non-notable Colombian/Venezuelan telenovelas that I was involved in dismantling last year, so I'm generally wary of them. If it's notable and you improve it, feel free to deprod (not that you need my permission anyway). Stifle (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(my follow-up responses are located at Stifle's talk page)

Re: Globally

Re your message: Thanks for removing his spam. Even though it has been over a week since he added a spam link, I blocked the account since it is obviously a spam-only account run by the company. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re your message: He's persistent. I blocked that account, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Review

Thanks for the review.

• I will contact Neuro -- I took on this signature because it is a lot easier to just call me 'Neuro' than 'Neurolysis', and it is a good bit more succinct too. I did not think to check whether a user called Neuro existed at the time, and it has slipped my mind for a good while now, it would seem.
• Most of the time now my edit summaries when tallying are just 'tally'. I will include the tally itself from now on.
• I did have a link to User:Neurolysis/Apology on my userpage a good while ago, but I took it off in January (I don't recall why now). I'll relink it again later today.

Again, thanks a lot for giving up some of your time to review my contributions, and I will certainly take on board the points and take due action to correct the issues which you have pointed out. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

His talk was a redirect, so that in conjunction with his edits makes me think that he isn't active enough for me to necessarily go about changing my signature (I guess I just feel affiliated with it, if that makes sense). I am, however, writing a message to him as we speak. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way (just noticed your bit about goofs), I have User:Neurolysis/Mistakes up. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note(s) and interest in addressing those things. None of them were serious concerns, but since they were all things I thought might come up at some point in another context, it seemed worthwhile to flag them for you. You obviously add a tremendous amount of positive attitude and useful contributions to the community, and I hope you don't take my concentrating on the fixable stuff as any suggestion otherwise. (Particularly the stuff with the old account - that's entirely your business, it just merited a mention.) Best - Townlake (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it. I'm much happier that people spoke their minds than never told me what I could be fixing. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

I do not disagree with anyone. I have not even said if I am for or against a separate page. I only added a common sense criteria, which is when there is enough stuff about the person, then we may consider an article.

Therefore, I am adding the common sense criteria to the other criteria, not saying yes or no. I hope this make sense to you. User F203 (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note; I'm sure your intentions are good, and discussions like this help Wikipedia improve. Since you posted essentially the same note over at the article's talk page, I'm inclined to keep the conversation over there instead of continuing it here. (And I'm going to wait to respond there for a while, in case anyone else wants to jump in.) Townlake (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)