User talk:Tverbeek/Archive01

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between the Big Bang and 31 Dec 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

---

Hello Tverbeek/Archive01 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Hi. Please don't create articles with nothing but a category link. If it's worth an article, please try to give it a start with at least one complete sentence, rather than givining anyone who clicks on it find a blank page. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 01:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Joe Kubert School of Cartoon and Graphic Art

Thanks for your contribution to wikipedia. Your page at Joe Kubert School of Cartoon and Graphic Art was listed as a candidate for speedy deletion because it did not contain any content. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia. Even a stub article of a couple lines would be enough. Thanks! -Frazzydee 01:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(my first personal attack)

From what Ive seen, youre pretty new here. No one has even given you a welcome salute.

I see no point in keeping everything ever put on my Talk page on display; I prefer tidiness. If you want to manage yours differently, that's up to you, but don't assume that we all do things your way.

For what it's worth, I've used Wikipedia for quite a while, and edited articles for months before I bothered registering, so they don't show up in my history. And I've been online for over twenty years, working on collaborative resources for much of that time, first on CompuServe, later on Usenet, and on the web (i.e. running my own informational web sites) for 9 years so far. To say nothing of my offline experience as a freelance writer and an editor. Go ahead and dismiss me as a newbie if that'll help you feel better, but I'm just sitting here thinking that you seem pretty inexperienced.

How dare you call me an unfit parent just because Id want more websites with information about which movies have nudity or not? If anything, that makes me a GOOD PARENT. Do you have children?

I didn't say you were unfit. I said that if you relied on that list to be complete, you would be unfit. I realise that English doesn't convey "subjunctive mood" very well, but that's what I was saying: If you did that, you would be unfit. If you're smarter than that, then good: maybe you're still a good parent.

Your assesion that the list is unneccesary is entirely a point of view,

And your assertion that it belongs there is POV as well. Why should yours win?

and what's more, no one had opposed before.

If you look at Talk:Eroticism in film, you'll see it has received criticism as a bad article. I think the reason no one removed the list before was a combination of two factors: 1) It's a pretty new article, and one that very few people have looked at (as you can see from its history), and 2) Nobody considered how misleading - and potentially harmful - the list would be if someone tried to use it the way you're suggesting.

The more lists of movies with nude or sensual scenes we have for parents to decide on the net whether their children should watch it or not, the better.

That would only be true if they were all good lists. I'll explain further down why I don't think one is good for that purpose, and never will be.

Furthermore, an encyclopedia is a palce to EDUCATE people accurately about all topics as much as possible,

"...as much as possible"? No. If it were, Wikipedia wouldn't put a 32K limit on articles. (There is no way to fit a list of all films with erotic content in a 32K article.) The purpose of a encyclopedia (and Wikipedia in particular) is to provide concise information that serves as an introduction to a topic. It is not - and never will be - complete. "More" is not always "better", and the mark of a good editor is knowing when to cut things out.

and, the nature of Wikipedia makes it perfectly good for that list to be there.

I disagree completely. Wikipedia is good for collecting information that (pretty much) everyone agrees upon. There are arguments, but in the long run, it ends up with a consensus of what the facts are. The problem is that there is no consensus on what movies are inappropriate for children to see because of eroticism. That's not a matter of fact, it's a matter of opinion.

You'll have a hard enough time getting people to reach a consensus on what eroticism is. Violent rape scenes? I don't think so. (They're not erotic, they're violent, which is a whole different issue.) But someone put several of them in the list. A half-second peek at someone's underwear? Not in my opinion; I'd be more concerned about an hour and a half of someone in a sexy outfit that didn't show any underwear or excess skin. But there are "peekaboo" scenes included in the list. And what about scenes where people keep their clothes on but talk about sex or use vulgar language? They're not in the list (no nudity or underwear), and if someone started adding them, you'd have people taking them out, because they don't think the films are erotic.

Next, there's never going to be a consensus on what's appropriate for children. I think that Tom Cruise dancing in his underpants and a long shirt in an empty house in Risky Business is perfectly fine for boys of any age to see. (Perhaps you disagree, but that just proves my point.) But it's in the list, and there's really no way to tell from a list that it'd be OK for me and my 8-year-old son to watch that scene together, but that my 13-year-old daughter maybe shouldn't.

The only way a list of films is going to be useful to a responsible parents is if that list has been compiled by someone who shares their opinions about eroticism and it's appropriateness for children. Some "family watchdog" groups have lists like that, and if you agree with their criteria, that'll help. But if you're going to do a responsible job of checking out movies before you let your kids see them, you need to do more than just read some lists. Read reviews of the movies. The MPAA explains why they gave a movie an "R" or "PG-13" rating. Most online guides for parents will go into even more detail. They do a much better job, because that's what they're there for. Wikipedia was not created to serve as a guide for parenting. It was set up as a repository for generally-agreed-upon facts, not subjective and inconsistent opinions of whether a given movie is "erotic" and whether the specific nudity or underwear seen is inappropriate for children of a certain age or gender.

Most of these issues are covered in the article itself, by the way. Did you read it, or are you too fixated on the list?

Before you know me, dont even come and judge my abilities as a parent. You don't know me, you can't judge me. And as far as talking to people on article pages, I think thats what chickens do.

That's funny, because that's exactly what I think of your approach. If you have the courage of your convictions, put your comments about the content of the article on the article's Talk page, where everyone with an interest in them can see them and criticise them if they're full of shit. Putting your comments in a single person's Talk page where only he is going to see them serves only one purpose: to hide them from the public.

If you have something to say against someone, say it on the person's talk page.

I admit, I started talking about you personally, which is why I posted it on your personal page. But Tregoweth was talking about the article (not you), and you told him to put his comments on your Talk instead. That makes no sense (and strikes me as rather self-centered).

Thank you and God bless you.

Can we please leave your religion out of this? (And what's with the link? Do you think we're too stupid to understand what "God bless you" means without it?)

One last thing: As you go on at this website, you will learn not to be offended by people re editing what you did, and that you are not always right.

It wasn't my edit that you undid, Antonio (at least not the first time you did it). It was someone else's edit - which, after thinking about, I agreed with - that upset me.

I had to learn that too.

It doesn't appear that you have learned that. So far you're reverted the edits of two people who think that the list should be removed, and you seem pretty intent on keeping it regardless of what anyone says.

Sincerely yours, "Antonio WNBA players for sex Martin"

Is this the kind of example you set for your children?

Look Tverbeek, youre a retard. All your experience online doesnt prove anything. The way you answer my answers tells me youre a moron. Once again, youre a chicken for trying to answer me without me seeing.

I am a VERY well respected member of Wikipedia and , maybe for your own chagrin, many of the most influential people here like the job that I have done. But you are one of those people who has to win every time.

IF YOU ANSWER ME IN ANY WAY AND IF YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT WHAT IVE SAID TO YOU, I WILL COMPLAIN TOO. I HAVE all the prove that you have attacked me and that YOU started this. So dont even SPEAK TO ME, ABOUT ME OR AGAINST ME IN ANY OTHER WAY, DO YOU UNDERSTAND????

And at least I HAVE THE BALLS to talk to you straight to your face, not behind other pages. And I WILL ALWAYS SAY GOD BLESS YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE MY BROTHER IN GOD. BUT YOU DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO. I CAN TELL PEOPLE AT THIS SITE WHATEVER IS IN MY MIND!

So please put an end to all this stupidity you started.

God bless you and help you find a way to manage your own internal problems.

Sincerely yours, "Antonio I Call Mysefl whatever I want Martin"

Truce

Dear Tverbeek: Hello! I wanted to apologize for the war of words that we had. I just felt offended when you said I was probably an unfit parent. I hope you understand that. I just think that a list would be helpful for worried parents, like me, to choose which movies are adequate for their children to watch, is not out of place.

You are a lawyer. Lawyer's mentality usually (from what Ive observed anyways) is that no matter the circumstances, everyone has a right to have a defense, even if the person is actually guilty, lawyers could look at the person's background, determine that they did this or that because of the damage they suffered as children, etc.

Im telling you this because Im a former boxer myself. You have to understand a boxer's mentality, that is, if a boxer feels offended, he or she is going to fire back. It is, after all, a sport (boxing). But I am deeply sorry about the rude words that I fired back at you with. As a boxer, I never wanted to be the stereotypical dumb bum and show the world that boxers can also have culture, and, if you will, class. Ive actually even written an article about the law in Arizona here (see Shannon Smith and Shannon's law. Although my main purpose when I came here was to inform people of other boxing heroes beyond Muhammad Ali, this has been a vehicle for me to learn more about other topics I already had interest in learning about. My IQ is of 120. I heard that is pretty good.

I just want you to understand that this war of words made me question my own approach towards moments when I might feel offended. Im a pacifist actually. I think that if Bush or Saddam or whoever wants to solve something they should solve it in a ring, so Im a pacifist and I dont want this war of words to continue.

I already asked for mediation in our situation.

Another thing, I read your last post on Erotism in film, and I agree with most of what you had to say. I have been gearing towards the idea of making the list a separate page. I just felt a little offended by the parent thing, because Im a wonderful parent. I would give my heart to my little six year old girl (of who I have custody, btw) if I had to, no questions asked, no buts or ifs. I want you to know also that I keep my sexual affairs as far from her as possible. The nicknames I use here are only to make people laugh a little. A father or mother's love is the most beautiful thing in earth besides the love of God. Like I said, I am deeply sorry that I responded to you in the fierce manner in which I did. Talking about God, I think it doesnt matter what religion you are a part of or whether you are an atheist or whether we are at war. I want you to know that, as a Christian, I always send my blessings as a heart felt thing, and in good spirit.

Truce?

I certainly hope so!

God bless you!

Sincerely yours, "Antonio The Apple of Temptation Martin"

Thanks for Matt Feazell

Thanks for the great fleshing-out of Matt Feazell. DenisMoskowitz 14:34, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Leeds

I cannot believe that you have merged Leeds and City of Leeds whil;st a) there was a debate going on on the Leeds talk page and b) whilst there was a debate going on on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Subdivisions. The Leeds article dealt with the city proper. The City article dealt with the borough. Now you have created a completely anomolous pattern, with Leeds being the only Borough/District not to have its own article. You really really should not go off half cocked on these things. I have reverted the change. Please do merge this or any other article unless there is a consensus to. --Tagishsimon

Haiku reverts

• It is not true that the naming decision was made by the "project leaders" alone as there was discussion and an official vote which lead to the final decision. I was one of the "project leaders" during that time period, and thus I am aware that the vote was indeed a large part of the decision. By reverting back to my original phrasing I intended to keep the suggestion that the decision was one of the community and the project, but I agree that it is unclear and needs changing. I will update this shortly.

• You cannot assert that NewOS is completely free of "proprietary material from Be". It is an assumption and, while probably true, has no purpose being in the article.

• I changed "BeOS's default web browser" to "the default BeOS web browser". I did this simply because of how "BeOS's" interrupts the flow (Be-Oh-Ess-Iss doesn't come off the tongue as easily).

• Upon further review, your expansion of the advantages of binary compatibility was necessary and I was not justified to remove it. I will add it back with your name attached.

• Does the article really need an arbitrary date attached to it? Isn't it better to say "currently there are kits in beta" and change that when the statement is no longer true, rather than "as of september 2004 there are kits in beta" and change that when the statement is no longer true? Either phrase, left unchanged, will be out of date. My worry was that a reader would see "September 2004" and, it not being September 2004, would immediately assume that the information was out of date, which unless the article is not updated would not be true.

Androo 18:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The nets a damn small place...

Saw your username appear in my watchlist for Potato Chips, thought it sounded familiar. I can't think of how many times I've linked people to your "Just say no to Microsoft" page when they've wanted a list of alternatives to a MSFT product...

Kiand 02:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Over-reaction

It was not spiteful, perhaps clumsy, definitely lazy. I felt it was a safe assumption that you're previous edit was also incorrect, but I am sorry that it offended you. I did not take the time to verify if Howard Cruse was gay, just as you did not take the time to verify if Philip Glass was gay. Hyacinth 02:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WP edits

Good job on the WordPerfect article. Krupo 07:08, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Optimus Prime (person)

I think the consensus is tied, therefore I took the decision to redirect, as I believe there is no need for a seperate article on a National Guard trooper named after a cartoon character, therefore the article WILL be reverted back to a redirect. Do you really think it requires its own page? Astrotrain 18:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• There is a clear majority however, that the article should be not exist in its own right. I am redirecting it to Optimus Prime. If you are so keen for the person to be mentioned, by all means add an entry to the Optimus Prime. I will not, because I don't think this "person" warrants an entry anywhere. So again, I will redirect. Astrotrain 21:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nudity

None so blind as those who won't see. When I said I had done with you, I meant it. No use pushing against a closed door.Dr Zen 02:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) If it makes you happy to feel that, fine. It's a good way of dismissing a person's argument, after all.Dr Zen 04:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Irony? Get the maid to do it.Dr Zen 05:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Peter Pan Copyright

Thanks for cleaning up that section of Peter Pan, particularly for casting the statements in terms of claims made by the various parties. I am surprised to learn, however, that the hospital's claim is that US copyright extensions apply to a pre-1923 work, and not some other claim: e.g. that the Uruguay round restorations apply (not that they appear to), that the publication date of the play in the US was after 1923, etc. Did you locate their arguments online somewhere? Deh 22:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nomination for collaboration of the week

Hi- I've nominated American comic book for collaboration of the week. This if it is selected it will bring a many good contributors to work on the article. If you don't mind, please give your vote of support here (near the bottom of the page). Happy editing! ike9898 18:16, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

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

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

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

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Moon Theory

Dear Tverbeek,

I have opened User:Wikinaut/Moon-Earthquake-Theory for further discussions. Of course, I will use original data. But I'm busy with patches for MEdiaWiki (Email notification and talks in Berlin with Brion and Tim and Co.), so I haven't that much time at the moment.

Could you help me ? --Wikinaut 01:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Static Shock

Hi, Todd. Thanks for the note. I decided not to vote this time round, because I can't make up my mind. To be honest, I don't remember much about my previous foray. (Old age catching up with me fast?) Deb 20:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re-join vs. rejoin

This is a very minor point but re:Wonder Woman, where are you getting the spelling "re-join" from? I have never seen it spelled hyphenated and both my Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's Dictionary spell it "rejoin" so this doesn't appear to be a British vs. American spelling issue. Just curious. Cheers! 23skidoo 18:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought you had done the original edit on rejoin and had reverted my revert. I didn't revert all the stuff the fellow added, but there were a couple of things that were a bit off, such as the punctuation surrounding the use of ( and ) though your use of em-dashes was more correct. Sorry for the confusion. Cheers. (PS. If you want to delete this thread to save space on your talk page, since it's moot, please do so). Cheers 23skidoo 20:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heya!

Hey, Todd! Good to see another rac* alumnus on here. Best wishes re: Andy. DS 22:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hope

Hey, couldn't you let that hope thing stick around a little longer? 7 hours? you can't deny that was funny.

Funny? Sorry, but no, it wasn't. Not because it was offensive or anything. It just wasn't funny. It was pointless. And even if it were funny, I wouldn't leave it any longer than a minute after I found it. Tverbeek 11:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apple and grammar

Thanks, Tverbeek; I wasn't aware of that distinction between American and British English grammar. Now I can stop going around all the International English articles and correcting the subject/verb agreement ;). Since you didn't revert my reversion, though, I'm sure you're already perfectly aware that the variety of English should be consistent within an article. Thanks for the heads up, though. —Miles←☎ 11:26, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Earth-1/One

Hi there,

I know that Crisis probably looms larger than most of my childhood comic recollections but I just can't remember seeing the "Earth-One" form anywhere other than here on the Wikipedia DC Multiverse page. Every time I've ever seen anyone reference the Multiverse, it's always been using "Earth-1" and "Earth-2." And just from a practical perspective, I cannot believe all the letterers of the day took the time to spell out "one," "two," "three," etc. every time numbered Earths were mentioned.

And, if we want to be picky, if Earth-4 and Earth-6 only appeared in Crisis, then they were designated with the numerals 4 and 6, not with "Four" and "Six."

Joeyconnick 05:17, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

If you think about it, hand-lettered "Earth-1" and "Earth-2" would have been easily misread as "Earth-I" and "Earth-Z".

Which would be why there's no Earth-I or Earth-Z, much like there's no Earth-5 (too easy to confuse with Earth-S). It certainly didn't confuse me in Crisis. Anyway, I bow to your comic collection, although I will forever prefer numerals over letters in this case.

Joeyconnick 06:20, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Category:Graphic novelist

I've listed it on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 25 if you'd like to vote? Steve block 17:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Addendum: We've also decided, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics, to branch this out a bit, and are inviting comment at Category talk:Graphic novels. I thought I'd mention it as you've shown interest in the debate. Steve block 08:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Good job on Classic

Good job on making the Intel changes to [Classic (Mac OS X)]. I didn't expect it to be so good. --Steven Fisher 02:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wordy article titles

Fair enough. I'd been told otherwise elsewhere, that it was policy to use full title on books and films, but since you can cite, I'll believe you. Steve block 12:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eclipse Comics

You go, boy! Great additions to the entry. The gone-but-not-forgotten Eclipse was a pioneer, and it's wonderful to see such learned expansions. 24.215.163.254 2:52, 11 Jun 2005

Belligerent attitude

Now, I realize where your belligerent attitude comes from. You're a gay man. OK, that explains it all. And I can say this because I too am gay... however, I strive to act as a gentleman, and that's rare in our community. By the way, don't screw with people's handles, as you're screwing with their individuality. What would you have me say in return: "Stop being a 'flaming faggot'?" Note that I'm not calling you that... it's merely meant to be argumentation. LOL In other minds, mind your own effing business. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 04:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

What a steaming load of [personal attack self-censored]. Tverbeek 04:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the record: The ironically named User:Stevietheman has refused to participate in mediation, and deleted every attempt I've made to communicate with him from his Talk page, no matter how civil I was, calling it a "personal attack". So the only easily-accessible history behind this somewhat incoherent insult from him can be found at Talk:weblog. Tverbeek 18:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

don't let them get you down

Todd, I saw your comments on the req 4 mediation page about your sexual orientation. While I am straight, I do not like people persecuted for any reason. In case you don't know, we straight people can be quite perverted. I simply wanted to drop you a line and let you know that not all people who are straight hate gays. Don't let their disparaging comments get you down. While I do not think being gay is good at all, I understand the perils of choosing the wrong straight partner to marry are equally bad; I have researched that matter myself, finding that things in common is a major plus, the gender being the only thing that should be not in common. The pages where I have posted my research, in case you're interested are: http://www.geocities.com/Gordon_Watts32313/love.html and its mirror http://gordon_watts.tripod.com/love.html ... Take care.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation request

Please inform the other parties of the mediation request you made. At the moment, it's imperative people enter mediation willingly. Mediation rules say this should be between 2 users, but I think we can make an exception in this case. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Macintosh Plus

Hello Tverbeek. I read about suggestions from you and from Tempshill.

Unfortunately I must disagree. Amiga was directly related into Macintosh Plus page.

Infact ask yourself why Amiga was accepted and tolerated into Apple Macintosh Plus page for almost one year since may 2004 inserted by user 24.26.93.10 (and until I revealed the story was different as originally traded).

When computers that are "unrelated" to the issue are considered a joke and mac wiki editors of the article can laugh of them, THEN they are tolerated.

When these computers become "embarassing" simply they are deleted from the issue.

How easy is living this way. Propaganda in Stalinan Russia was more polite.

To solve this moderation consider also this proposal of mine:

I do not want my changes to Macintosh+ Trivia appear anymore in the main Macintosh Plus page but they should remain into discussion page.

But Amiga suffered for a wrong, and any wrong sure requires a little reparation as amend.

i.e. as reparation I want that whole Star-trek Trivia (including Amiga presence) regarding Macintosh Plus page will be reverted as originally traded since may 2004 and a note should be written pointing to Mac Plus discussion page (in which there are the facts I found and revealed to the public of wikipedia).

I want only this line into brackets should appear:

-> (See also discussion page about other evidences on these trivia)

I think it is a honest request to return MacPlus page as orignally traded since may 2004

(Nobody complained of it, before my intervention)

sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte 23:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, sorry

That was to help. I did that because your link don't work well for me without " www ". Please consider than if I clic on without the www, that show to me :

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer/2.0.53 (Mandrakelinux/PREFORK-9mdk) 
Server at toddverbeek.com Port 80

If it's normal that's fine :) Yug 22:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you are welcome : that's wiki :) Yug 23:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mactel versus MacIntel

Please see my comment on the MacIntel talk page. --17:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Earring

Sorry -- I liked your grammar corrections and didn't mean to erase them (I tried to be careful but obviously messed up in a couple of spots). And, for the most part, I don't disagree with your other changes. However, the left vs. right thing has been visited and revisited here almost for the entire life of the article, and has gone through various revisions. The thing is, it's not (and never was) actually true, but some people still think that it's true, and in days gone by lots of people thought it was true, so some mention is called for. I still feel it's rightful place is in the FAQ. Earpol 16:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah ha! I have you beat by more than ten years on the ear piercing thing :-) -- I originally pierced both ears at the same time in the early 70s -- and it had no meaning to me at all WRT gender orientation. Now, I agree that many people thought there was symbolism in left vs. right, indeed, many men who pierced their ears thought this. But a large number of people didn't think this way (not just me), and so whatever symbolism that did exist was definitely not universal. In general, gender orientation wasn't actually symbolized by which ear was pierced. It is dilluted even more when put into larger historical context. Perhaps the best way to phrase the reference would be something like: "In recent decades, some people have subscribed to the concept that a man's choice of pierced ear is symbolic of his sexual orientation. While true in some cases, it is generally not valid, because many people have not adopted this symbolism. Moreover, since the mid-1990s, the concept itself has been fading."

Tinkerbell ?

Perhaps my humor was a little too subtle. Either that or you were being polite. Tinkerbell is a "fairy", don'cha know. I was trying to take a somewhat-subtle shot (i.e. somewhat under the POV radar) at the Christian fanatics who boycotted Disney because they wouldn't persecute gays who decided to have "gay days" at Disney World and such. We're seeing that kind of arm-twisting starting in industry now, as the Christian fascists are working on boycotting American companies that offer domestic partner health benefits and such. FYI, I am "straight but not narrow" (except where nannyism is concerned). :) Wahkeenah 17:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slashdot

[1]

Hahaha... damn not having any modpoints, although I think it wasn +5 already by the time I found it... --Kiand 28 June 2005 13:52 (UTC)

Orient

<Jun-Dai 30 June 2005 18:27 (UTC)> Thanks for cleaning it up! It was desparately in need of it. </Jun-Dai>

Mart Ina ?

Sounds like a close relative of Ann Nonymous. Wahkeenah 6 July 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Commercial Links

I didn't think there was a need to respond. I won't do it again - I was more concerned with the actual fact -that people make these fake buttons - than with that specific site, and using the site as an example. I thought I had the commercial site rule covered by having it as a source/reference/proof/example, whatever you want to call it. But if it's not ok, than it's that fine. I'll delete them from the other pages they're still on too, also because the links were not only commercial, but dead. I

I delete the comments, those that address a certain issue, once I have "dealt" with them. I leave the neutral ones because I usually don't have to "deal" with them in any way. If I had the time to figure out how to do it, I would probably have it all in an archive, like other people do, but I just don't right now. And of course, it's all still in the history, so anyone can check anything there. --newsjunkie 6 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

Lake Michigan

Sorry, I'm not trying to make you out as the bad guy, or anyone for that matter. You had, however, called my actions rude, so I was trying to explain them as they were based on wikipedia guidelines. siafu 02:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Retcon

Well, maybe I indeed misunderstood the definition of the word, I'm still not sure. My "see talk" comment was directed at this comment, explaining that the "retcon" from Roseanne was planned all along. So, even if it was planned, is it still a retcon? If yes, the whole definition seems kind of useless to me, because every story with a plot twist (thus filling gaps in the history of the story at the end of it) would be a retcon then. --Conti|✉ 21:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

User:201.133.210.33 (movie POV vandal)

Hi Todd, I just wanted to let you know that I've listed User:201.133.210.33, the anon user who's been making all of those POV edits to movie-related articles lately, on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, in the section IP addresses -> Severe. --Idont Havaname 03:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Showcase Revert?

Hey man whyd you revert all my changes to Showcase (comic book)? I can kinda see some small cause for removing the Solo ref, I guess you could say the links between the two series are slightly tenous, (though I dont really agree), but the Essentials bit is totally justified. The Showcase b+w collections are clearly an attempt to imitate the success of Marvel's Essential line. I think its great that they are doing them and I'll probably buy a few of them, but they are an imitation nonetheless. You could have just changed it to inspired by or something more neutral (though frankly I really dont see the problem) but you just wiped everything I wrote like it was vandalism or something!! Anyway I think that both the Essentials definitely and Solo probably deserve to be mentioned in the article, but I recognise your name from usenet and I know your usually a pretty decent guy so I wanted to hear back from you before I revert the revert, in case there's something Im missing here. Hueysheridan 03:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay thanks for geting back to me so promptly. I still think your points are wrong and rather arbitary though.

On the Essentials: You say you cant mention the link without citing a source. I dont agree thats true -the rest of the article cites no sources at all and Wikipedia is probably 90% uncited material - usually self evident facts dont need citation!.

If the connection between Essential and Showcase Presents were self-evident, there'd be no reason to state it in the article. It isn't self-evident; it's a conclusion that you (and other people) have made about motivation and other speculative matters by connecting the dots between the basic facts about both sets of books. The books are similar: that's a fact. One is imitating the other: that's a conclusion. The facts in the article don't need specific citations because they are simple facts. Your analysis - making a connection from one to the other that is not self-evident - does. Don't take my word for it: read the Wikipedia policies.

C'mon when an imitation is as obvious as this does it really need a hard citation? if so then you should wipe all mention of the original Captain Marvel from the Marvelman article and Superman from the Mighty Mouse entry as well as thousands of others Im sure. The connection is obvious and deserves a mention. Keep reading though I think we agree anyway further down... Hueysheridan 21:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

But you asked, so I did some detective work and Ive yet to find an article that announces the Showcase line which doesnt bring up the fact that they are a mimic of the Essentials. Examples - Marvel Masterworks.com scroll down to NEWS UPDATE: 6/4, DC PRESENTS.... SHOWCASE PRESENTS! "What the heck is Showcase Presents, you ask? Well, the short answer is that it's DC Comics' answer to Marvel's Essentials series! ..."

(A fan site about Marvel's books isn't exactly an objective source about DC's books.)

Have you even looked at the site? My quote might give you the misleading idea that they are panning the move by comparing the two, they are actually very entusiastic about it (not that it matters but so am I actually) The site is dedicated to collections and new tradepaperbacks of old comics in general and not dedicated to Marvel as their name might lead you to believe.

Or at the blog entry Essential DC! where it says "Similar to Marvel's Essential line, DC Showcase Presents..."

Or Sequential Art where if you scroll down on the linked page it says "DC's recently announced black-and-white collections, after the model of Marvel's Essential line..."

Finally from the horse's mouth: the fifth message on the thread [2] Osgood Peabody's "A response from Bob" Robert Greenberger (DC's colections editor) clearly uses the Essentials as a proxy for the Showcase line when defending the charge that the new program will damage the Archives "Marvel certainly didn't end the Essentials when they relaunched their Masterworks line."

Greenberger also did a interview with the Pulse and Id bet he acknowledged their debt to Marvel there in some way, but the article isnt online anymore. Anyway the Essentials clearly warrant some mention if only as a handy shorthand for describing what Showcase Presents ... is, let alone to acknowledge their obvious providence.

Great. Now instead of putting your conclusions in the article, instead include a statement of fact, such as "DC Comics' collection editor Robert Greenberger said...." or "The new line of books was widely compared to..." That's how the policies about neutral point of view and against speculation work.

Okay thats reasonable enough, Ill accept your second suggestion and go with "The new line of books was widely compared to..." and add "Marvel's Essential line of collections which that company has been publishing since 1996" does that work for you?

It's a statement of fact. That's progress.

On the Solo / Showcase links: Here I see your point more, but its still shaky.

The case for leaving it out doesn't need to be solid. The case for including it does.

Whereas I would argue the opposite - the two do have parallels (both anthologies, both DC, both using different DC characters, both being essentially 'Showcases', though one ids of talen the other is of new concepts) so much so that I think its better to give it the benefit of the doubt and include it.

And you would have already lost that argument, because Wikipedia policy does not amount to "when in doubt, put it in". You have to make a convincing case that Solo is relevant enough to the topic of this article that it warrants shoehorning it in here. If someone reads this article, it's because they want to know about Showcase. If they want to know about things that might be somehow similar to Showcase, they can check "What links here". Understand: I don't have a problem with an article about Solo indicating that Showcase was part of the history behind it or a key influence on it. Because (if true) that's a noteworthy fact about Solo. It doesn't provide any additional information about Showcase, however.

The two series have lots of parallels and iirc Solo was titled Showcase at the development stage. The name was certainly considered as this article seems to suggest: DC COMICS' LONE STAR: MARK CHIARELLO TALKS 'SOLO' "Maybe it's nostalgia, but some have wondered if perhaps DC should have renamed "Solo" as "Showcase," a nod to their classic DC series that highlighted different DC characters, but Chiarello says there is a reason for the new and quite short title. Mainly because it's not "Showcase." "Because the individual artist is central to each individual issue, I wanted to showcase each artist's name as big as humanly possible on the cover, but you can't call the comic 'The Brian Bolland Comic Book'- you need to attach some kind of title to it..." . So he (the titles editor) says its "not Showcase" but he does acknowledge the parallels, which is all I did in my edit.

Great. So put that information in an article about Solo. Because it's all about Solo. And if you really insist on mentioning Solo in the article about Showcase, please refrain from putting in your own opinions like calling it "the modern heir to Showcase'". If it isn't a statement that anyone would agree is true (hint: I disagree with it), then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Tverbeek 18:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

C'mon thats a recipe for disaster - Wikipedia isnt based on absolute consensus, just general consensus. By the interpretation you seem to be putting on the wikipedia rules nothing contentious could be covered as someone disagrees with them. But they are, though those articles have qualifiers like "some people believe" or "it has been suggested". Your quote leaves out my qualifier "Solo, in some ways the modern heir to Showcase", and the fact that I then went into detail about the differences and the similarities.

Would you please take some time to read Wikipedia's policies regarding this? The people who set this site up have thought all of this through, and written some pretty clear statements about the demand for neutral point of view and how it can be achieved. They certainly don't condone opinionated drivel like "the modern heir to". And "some people believe" and "it has been suggested" are the kinds of unauthoritative "weasel words" that Wikipedia strongly discourages. The fact that other articles haven't been fixed yet doesn't mean that that kind of sloppy langauge is appropriate.

I don't know how to make this any more clear than this: Wikipedia doesn't care what you - or I - think. It is not interested in your observations, your insightful comparisons, or anyone's thoughts about whether "Solo is the modern heir to Showcase". It is interested in facts, and only facts. This "modern heir" stuff is not a question of fact. It's just you commenting on what you find interesting about the two, much like your English teacher used to ask you to do, to show that you'd read and understood "Romeo & Juliet" and "West Side Story". But Wikipedia doesn't care. An essay comparing and contrasting Maria with Juliet is not what Wikipedia is for, and it specifically disallows that kind of "thinking about" topics. The only context in which Wikipedia cares about that kind of thing is when these observations, comparisons, etc. are widely-held or influential opinions, and that is a matter of fact. And even then, it doesn't simply accept them as worthy of being included in an article. It merely reports who has expressed this belief (not a vague "some people") so the reader can decide whether they consider them credible or not, and what the belief is. It does not endorse it. It does not denounce it. It simply reports that it is a noteworthy belief. That is what is meant by "Neutral Point Of View", and the demand for NPOV is the one Wikipedia policy that will never be reconsidered. And despite your skepticism, it works. This kind of slavish objectivity does reach "absolute consensus" (or near enough for all practical purposes) on all sorts of contentious subjects.

But I see that you probaby wont give in on this point so hows about this? we mention Solo but in some offhand way in the introduction to the Showcase presents series - say something like "DC's current anthology title, Solo, spotlights artistic talent rather than new concepts and the Showcase name is used for a line of thick, black-and-white reprints of older material under the umbrella title Showcase Presents..." followed by the "The new line of ..." bit from above? Hows does that work for you? Hueysheridan 20:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That makes a much sense as insisting that an article about the Soviet Union should describe Albania, simply because they're both formerly-Marxist countries. Or arguing that the article about Christopher Reeve should include a mention of my friend Johnny, because they have some signficant characteristics in common. No: an article about the USSR should be about the USSR, and an article about Reeve should be about Reeve.

Whew. Hueysheridan 13:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice straw man argument there. I would compare it more with mentioning Dean Cain in the Reeve article, but you may not think that that would be appropriate either.

It seems the "modern heir" phrase as pariculiarly nauseaus to you. Okay. I never argued for its inclusion and wouldnt have bothered with all of this if you had just taken it out.

You mention the "what links here" button as a method that Showcase readers might find out about Solo, and your right there is a link at Solo (comics) to Showcase. But what about when people reading the Solo page want to find out about similar series? without the Showcase link they wont be able to learn about it. If Solo should link to Showcase then why not the opposite? seems like double standards to me.

But you know what? I really dont care anymore. Im willing to give up on the Solo link if only to arrive at our own measure of "absolute consensus". I just hope that this whole thing makes you think twice before you revert someone's entire edit next time. If you had just rephrased at least part of what Id said I wouldnt have bothered with any of this.

You didnt aknowledge it in your last reply but I think we agreed above that there was some merit to the Essentials comparison. So if I add the phrase "The new line of books was widely compared to Marvel's similarly formatted Essential line of collections which that company has been publishing since 1996" would you object? Hueysheridan 18:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

A bit about time sensitive material, and article consensus.

I understand, and to great degree with your assertion that encyclopedic articles should be more objective than subjective, however it seems you fail to take into account that there are many people, places, things, and ideas worthy of representation that do not necessarily enjoy clear black and white, indisputable explanations, identifications, or characterizations (not necessarily respectively). Take for example the article on Global warming: one could argue that the whole article is a point of view. It includes whole sections detailing the causes of Global warming and it's effects; leaving as a forgone conclusion that Global warning's existence is a fact. As a matter of fact the subject the article isn't presented as an explanation of a theory at all, which would probably make it more objective. Do you contend that this subject is not worthy of representation in Wikipedia because there is dispute about the existence?

Now it seems to me that your comment about removing time sensitive material is a point of view about what wikipedia is supposed to be. I believe that it is meant to be living tomes with information as current as possible. Upon may many years of using wikipedia as a reference tool it this seems to be a widely held belief of many authors and editors of articles. I by no means believe that articles should degenerate into “What's New” news pages, however I see no sin in including general time sensitive representations of the current state of the subject of the article if it applies.

If Global warming doesn't acknowledge that there are skeptics, then it's in violation of Wikipedia policy. Which you would know if you'd read it, like I asked. If you have questions or arguments about it, don't take it up with me. It isn't just my opinion: it's a non-negotiable demand of the guy who started it. And it's not just my opinion that Wikipedia should avoid statments that will become out of date - and therefore incorrect - quickly, it's in the Wikipedia style guide. Tverbeek 13:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Mac OS

a signficant number of Macintosh users have continued using the older OS

Any sources or numbers to back this up. I'm not really opposing the edit, I just keep seeing people arguing one side or the other and I'd really love to know if there is evidence either way. If you don't then perhaps the word "significant" might be a bit POV, but I'll leave it up to you. AlistairMcMillan 01:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Re: No Java Applets?

Hi, I just responded to your comment on the discussion page for Rosetta (software)

Sorry for not properly referencing my source, I'm still new.

Good job vandal

Don't you feel special. Agriculture 02:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Your Edits

..can be considered Vandalism, if you continue with this type of action, you will be banned--I-2-d2 04:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have looked through your history and cannot find much evidence of vandalism. Since this was minor and not connected to a series of defacements you should have only been given a first warning. I-2-D2 is somewhat over-zelous in protecting his beliefs. Just keep in mind that other editors take this sort of thing very seriously. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 12:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Superhero

As a contributor to the above article, would you mind looking through it and seeing if you can provide any references? The reason I ask is that at WPT:CMC we are trying to get more comics articles given Featured Article status. Thanks for any help you could provide. Steve block talk 15:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Michigan

I see you sometimes edit articles on Michigan-related items. You might be interested in the new wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan. Cheers. older≠wiser 21:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Figure drawing

Good call on my last edit. I was just trying to dispell the common misconception that figure drawing studios are hotbeds of eroticism, but it ended up fairly POV. --Xastic 18:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Re...

Well, the simple fact is that George Lucas did indeed come up with a script for the entire trilogy that was based on some brother/sister/father thing in mythology before the first one was ever made. He even played around with the idea a bit, and at one point made Leia the main character. There is evidence even that he wrote synopses of the prequels beforehand, too. Try Empire of Dreams as a source. elvenscout742 13:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

My apologies Tverbeek, no mischeveaous intent was intended. I based my name on the term retcon, that was the sole reason for that action. Thank you for clarifying that matter.

Simply and purely an honest mistake

First things first Tverbeek, thank you for bringing to my attention the correct application of redirects. There was absolutely no malevolent intent in my doing that, I redirected my pages because I chose "retcon" as my alias a long time ago because of my love for the terminology and didn't really have much to say. I deeply regret if I've offended anyone by that, however I would like to have my talk page reflect any advice and input rather than relating to discipline. I am unsure why your persist in making defamatory statement relating to "respect earned" on my talk page however. Retcon 01:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As I explained on your User_talk page before you blanked it (again) it's because your apology seems insincere in the context of your persistently disrespectful conduct, which seems to beg for a lecture on the subject. Tverbeek 01:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"Persistent disrespectful conduct"??? The page was redirected once, you advised against that, I thanked you and simply wanted to start from scratch with my user page. How is that "persistent disrespectful conduct"? Was blanking out the page constituted in the "persistent" aspect of this matter, if so then what of other users who edit their own talk pages when there is a message from another user they wish to remove? It is quite common to edit one's own talk page and the individual right of each Wikipedian, and there is no page that states an individual should leave their talk page static. There is a page on personal attacks against a fellow member, and that is what I perceive though I will accept the benefit of the doubt that you simply wish to impress the point of no further redirects. If so...done. Retcon 02:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your User page is - except for harmful redirects - yours to edit as you see fit. What I am attempting to get through to you, is the fact that persistently blanking your User_talk page (especially instead of responding) is rude, and that doing so is a great way to made a really bad impression on people. A bit like you've just done with me. Tverbeek 02:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Again sir, my apologies for any hassle this has caused. That was the last thing I intended and was poor judgment on my part. Retcon 04:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Grand Rapids promo reverts

What is the method you're using to decide whether an additional institution reference on Grand Rapids, Michigan is promotional or vanity? I didn't make the edit, but do you think establishments such as Yesterdog, the reference to which you recently deleted, don't deserve to included as a part of local culture because they are commercial? Or simply that they are not notable enough? Euphoria 02:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

your opinion

As Infinite crisis is not a completed series, much of the article can include speculation. It takes nothing away from what is already there. Sorry if you disagree. Every time you remove my contribution, I'll just put it back. You need to allow room for other people, as I did not actually remove anyone's contribution. The world is big enough for the both of us. First, last and only time I'm going to address it. Whenever you remove it, I'll put it back. i have all day.

This article or section contains information about a scheduled or expected comic book release, or a series already in progress. It is likely to contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the product release approaches and more information becomes available.

Ahh, sweet sweet 100% rightness, you are my lady.

illo sucks ass

just ot let you know, it's terrible 151.196.178.112 16:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I couldn't possibly care less what this person thinks, but I'm leaving this personal attack here, as evidence of his malice. Tverbeek 17:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)