User talk:Clicketyclick

Welcome!

Hello, Clicketyclick, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Thanks! And uh, happy Halloween, Great Pumpkin.--Clicketyclick 20:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Young has smiled at you! He says “ Thanks for your work on the Religion of Peace page, it is now much improved. Keep up the good work! ”

Ah! And now you have improved my talk page with your smile! Thank you for the encouragement.

The oldest quote we have on the

I see what you mean; it is rather hard to quickly see the reference's relevance because the answer is long. However, I have a real — whether founded or not — aversion to quoting anything but books (because they are less accessible) in a references/bibliography section, as it seems to me to be something better suited to a footnote (which is impossible to add here.) I would prefer it in the main body of the article. I'll try to figure out a way to work it in without it being too disruptive to the flow. Talking about flow... these block quotes we have (with more to be added in) in the article seem perhaps a bit awkward. Do you think it would be a good idea to have quotes on the sides and refer to them in the main text? (since I'm not good at explaining things, see --->) clicketyclick_yaketyyak 20:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you for your numerous edits which have helped improve the article. Happy editing! --Silver Edge (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! If you revert something, you are expected to join the talk page. Thanks --Aminz (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you make yourself clear in the edit summary that might not be necessary. Of course I encourage you to contribute on the talk page as well. Arrow740 (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up! I will be sure to join in when I'm not so sleepy and will hopefully make better sense. I only reverted because I saw that, between the two versions, Arrow's was better in that it did not mistake the Meccans for the Medinans. Until the discussion is resolved, I think it is best to keep it with this version, as it is more accurate. I do intend to discuss the source for Mohammed's alleged motivation.

While we're on the subject of talk pages, if you notice, I recently made some changes to it by merging some sections and putting a warning at the top. I wonder if you can look that over for me and tell me what you think. Thanks! clicketyclick_yaketyyak 10:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is not a place for discussing speculations of scholars. Because if you discuss this one, you should discuss that one too and you'll end up giving undue weight to some part of the article. The solution is to state the certain facts and leave up the details for the relevant articles. --Aminz (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my edit summary, there is undeniable speculation as to the motives of the Jews in the paragraph above, and that stays in, I presume, because it is nicely referenced. Additionally, it remains to be established whether what was said about Mohammed is speculation. I would like to see the direct quotation from the book before passing judgment. As far as I know, it could be quoting an hadith, in which case it wouldn't be speculation. I would be surprised if a biographer were to insert mere speculation into his/her work. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 10:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed historical works are full of speculations and there is all kinds of views. The section does not even mention the reasons why the Jews were accused and it is already one-sided. --Aminz (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not baseless speculation, and not speculation disguised as facts. Unfortunately, I cannot remember my old Amazon account and they now won't let you search inside books without purchases on your account, so I'm going to have to buy something and get back to you or else one of you is going to have to do me a favour and quote the page. In the meantime, there are plenty of other things to sort out with that article. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 10:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clicketyclick, I never said that it is a baseless speculation. It deserves to be mentioned (among other speculations) but in its own article, not in Muhammad article. We don't really have enough space to include all the undisputed "facts" in detail, let alone the speculations. For Watt, please refer to Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, Oxford University Press, p.131.

Thanks! --Aminz (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as I already mentioned, it has yet to be established that it is any sort of speculation at all. I would like to be afforded time to consult Ibn Ishaq's documentation. I would also like full quotation of relevant passages from those two later biographers. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 11:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Ibn Ishaq says:

Abd Allah b. Ubbay b. Salul rose up when God had put them in his power, and said, "Muhammad, treat my mawali well"; for they were the confederates of al-Khazraj. The Prophet delayed his answer, so 'Abd Allah repeated, "Muhammad, treat my mawali well." The Prophet turned away from him, and he put his hand into (The Messenger's) collar. The Messenger of God said, "Let me go!" - he was so angry that they could see shadows in his face (that is, his face coloured). The he said, "Damn you, let me go!" He replied, "No, by God, I will not let you go until you treat my mawali well. Four hundred man witout armour and three hundred with coats of mail, who defended me from the Arab and non-Arab alike, and you would mow them in a single morning? By God, I do not feel safe and am afraid of what the future may have in store." So the Messenger of God said, "They are yours."

In any case, I hope you have a good night! --Aminz (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added bold for the important part. It certainly indicates that Mohammed intended to execute them all and refused to listen to objections until he was forced to listen. After giving them to Abd Allah and instructing his followers to let them go, he then exiled them. Exiling ≠ mowing down, and since his compromise was to exile them, he could not have originally intended to exile them (otherwise it wouldn't be a compromise.) Disagree? clicketyclick_yaketyyak 11:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Form the metaphor "mow them" to "execution" involves a step. Watt says that Ibn Ubay argued that presence of Qaynuqa with 700 fighting men can help in view of the expected Meccan onslaught. And no matter if they go to exile or die, Qaynuqa can no longer defend him from "the Arab and non-Arab alike".

According to Watt, this conversation took place after Muhammad had decided to exile them(please take a look at the page I specified). Thanks --Aminz (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you can get access to books at: books dot google dot com, too. I am sorry but it is too much to quote from the books!! Have a nice times! --Aminz (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aminz! I have now replied to the discussion as you had invited me to do. I apologise for not doing it sooner. It is, unfortunately, an extremely verbose reply and I'm afraid that, upon seeing it, you may begin to regret having invited me to join in, so I must apologise for that too! clicketyclick_yaketyyak 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! I'm a fan of the game series myself, and I would have started to write an article on the new game if you hadn't beaten me to it ;). Well written and sourced article, I will contribute to it if and when I can. - TexMurphy (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Clicketyclick! helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply ] Getting started Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation User scripts

Have a better welcome template than the first one. You deserve better. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, rivalry eh? Thank you very much for those handy links. Though I do say the table would look better in purple. Everything does, after all. (-; clicketyclick_yaketyyak 20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated

]

On Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Underworld, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--Royalbroil 06:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! It's rare to see an article on an upcoming video game that is well-sourced from the very start, so I thought your effort deserved to be recognised.

DYK rules, and I generally use that. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Simply because the potential is there doesn't mean it should always be used. Its a generic table for multiple Wikipedia uses - many use colour, many more do not. The general unwritten convention (for that is what a convention is, an unwritten consensus) is that reception boxes do not use colour. However, I'm not going to get into a full blown debate over it - its not worth the effort for what is in any event a minor issue. So I've reverted it back. -- Sabre (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it doesn't mean it should always used, but if you're going to remove it and revert me the second I insert it back in, you better have a more robust reason. Consensus is decided by discussion, not observation and enforcement. Otherwise, what you interpret accidentally as consensus/guideline/convention could actually just be option/preference. And majority preference does not translate into any sort of enforceable rule. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 21:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were the other major editor during the article's climb to GA status, I'm just dropping a line to say that I thought the article could have a shot at getting through FAC. You can see the discussion here. -- Sabre (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, your reasoning for reverting my edit is absolutely fine (I forgot about it being in the distributor field), but I'd just like to advise that you should probably steer clear of using HL2's FA status as an example for anything, as it most likely wouldn't survive an FA review in its current state. -- Sabre (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. So perhaps HL2 is the next one we should work on (if you're not to busy with StarCraft...) after getting Orange to FA? What's happening with that? Sorry I wasn't there for it to help you to do the revisions during the review. I'll have a look through the comments now though. I'm going through section by section, attempting to clean up the prose and format at the moment. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 23:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm hoping to steer clear of major rewrites of FA's for the time being, I only recently completely redid

featured topic on The Orange Box if it passes its FA, which would mean Team Fortress 2 and Episode Two would need to be brought to at least GA - Portal is already FA. -- Sabre (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, and I never said "Welcome back". Welcome back. -- Sabre (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And thank you for those links, which I'll also look at now. I was just skimming through your rewrite and the amount of red had my head spinning. That was so much work; it must have taken you at the very least a full week or two. So then TF2 and Episode 2 are the main focus right now? I'd love to help out with TF2, so I guess you'll soon find me reverting your edits there too. :oP clicketyclick_yaketyyak 23:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That stuff on the reception section of The Orange Box is still undue weight, in that it is in no way necessary to go into that level of detail on a single author. It isn't necessary, we don't do it with any other reviewer. Simply stating that this reviewer said he couldn't think of any criticism for it without going into a backlog of his past history and reviewing style is all that is needed. Whether its referenced or not doesn't matter, its not relevant. This was picked up in the first FAC nomination, before it got restarted, and was removed then. It should be removed again before someone in FAC notices its return. -- Sabre (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it in the FAC nom. Someone there merely brought up the use of the word "admitted" and wondered about the word choice because it was not clear to him (due to a previous removal of the phrase that he was known for his acerbic-tongued criticism). I did not see this brought up as an issue in the peer review either. Care to point me to it? In any case, it is relevant to his praise of Portal because he notes that his praise is unusual in the very act of saying those things that are quoted in the article. Perhaps we can rework the stuff about his reviewing style if you find that the two adjectives describing it is a backlog, but it is important to mention that his praise is unusual, nor do I see any challenge to it by FAC reviewers, so no need to panic I don't think. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its in this bit, under the review by Ashnard. It's one of the struck points with my name next to it, as I dealt with it. It wasn't mentioned in the peer reviews because it hadn't been put back yet. Either way, whether something about his reviewing style is mentioned of not, what's there is too much. Something quick and to the point is all that is needed - "The normally harsh reviewer for the Escapist, Ben whats-his-name, admitted he could not fault it, and that Portal... -- Sabre (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He merely took issue with describing him as "acerbic-tongued" because it is an encyclopedia, which is a different objection than undue weight. Acerbic-tongued is what you might call peacock or flowery language and has a tone of bias. In any case, I am all in favour or a brief mention, but what you suggested ( "The normally harsh reviewer for the Escapist, Ben whats-his-name, admitted he could not fault it, and that Portal") is, I thought, effectively what the anon IP inserted prior to your RV. I just don't like the word "harsh" as it seems a bit judgmental to me (i.e. saying that he is overly critical or goes too hard on games) and I like the word "acerbic". I'll try again—tell me if you like it. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 17:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better -- Sabre (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've understood what I meant but I'll just clarify my point to make sure. Not only is "acerbic-tongued" flowery, but worse of all, it's figurative. This sort of language shouldn't be used in an encyclopaedia. Secondly, by commenting on his reputation as a reviewer, or you're actually weighting its relevance itself in a positive light towards the game. This is probably an infringement of NPOV. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I since changed it to The Escapist's usually acerbically critical reviewer, Ben Croshaw, stated in his Zero Punctuation review that he couldn't think of any criticism for Portal, which has "some of the funniest pitch-black humor [he had] ever heard in a game" and concluded that it is "absolutely sublime from start to finish."　This is no longer figurative or flowery. I do not think it is NPOV anymore either. Does this work for you? If so, will you support promotion to FA? If you won't, will you stop being so picky? :oP I kid, I kid... clicketyclick_yaketyyak 10:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wording's better, although you still shouldn't state such things about the reviewer for reasons raised above. About the FAC, I usually never go to renominations after I reviewed the original beacuse I like to see what other people think, and don't want to influence consensus a second time. Saying that, the article's looking better than when I reviewed it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your contributions to the article talk) 12:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply ]

I'd like to also congratulate you on this. I'd give you a second barnstar, but it would be a bit weird. Your work to the article has been excellent, and when you look at the before and after, it shows the work you almost singlehandedly have done. Ten new citations, reusing the current ones to cover extra sentences, formatting the existing refs, adding a development section, and so on. Right from your very first edit you've been improving articles pretty substantially. Great work, guy. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eh? There is no such thing as weird when it comes to collecting barnstars! :-D Ah, you've been doing research on me—how embarrassing. I appreciate the praise but I must confess that you do not seem very dreadful and am sorry to say that imo you don't live up to your name. Thanks, both of you. Much appreciated! clicketyclick_yaketyyak 22:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then, we'll see if free running will stay in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.167.253 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cited it in the article. Just click the number beside the sentence and it will take you to the ref. Here: the interview. Why are you so opposed to

free running? Free running is different from parkour because it emphasises freedom of movement and gymnastic style, not just efficiency like parkour. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

i've seen that interview, he doesn't mention parkour nor free running. what the trailer depicts is called parkour. parkour doesn't mean free running. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.26.111 (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you must have seen a different interview, a I have just actually clicked the link, and watched it. At 1:13 of the video, Owen O'Brien, the senior producer says "we take a lot of inspiration from, you know, parkour and free running, because we wanted to do quite acrobatic moves, not just running". So he mentions both parkour and free running. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Walrus. I just added the time at which it occurs into the citation. Hopefully that clears up the confusion for those who may have missed it. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 10:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes he does say it, but it doesn't change the fact that the game features parkour and not free running. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.27.123 (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, if you do decide to mediate this, feel free to drop me a message at any time. I initially mediated the

I'm sorry—were you intending to continue mediating their issues? I don't mean to usurp it from you. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 11:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, absolutely not. I'm too busy with this, this, this,

Well of course I'd greatly appreciate any help you have time to give. There are many issues involved in this case, not just limited to reliability or correct interpretation of sources. Besides the difficulty of the issue, I simply would be honoured to work alongside such an experienced wikipedian and am sure I would learn a lot by the experience. Good luck on the Second Intifada though. If you manage to resolve it, might I recommend you hop a plane overseas and see what you can do about it irl? clicketyclick_yaketyyak 11:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, now that the article has already been made featured article, I don't think it's necessary for me to continue to edit the page since I'll risk more easily being accused to be vandalism. For this reason, I decide to quit the article Tibet during the Ming Dynasty and English wikipedia for ever. And the mediation cabal can be also closed. Thank you!--LaGrandefr (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what mediation was instituted in order to prevent: people getting so frustrated that they leave Wikipedia. Please don't let this experience dissuade you from editing Wikipedia in the future. Let's try to resolve the issue, okay? It would be a terrible failure on everyone's part if a new user became frustrated and left Wikipedia—and all before any attempt at mediation could be made.

It seems that when edits are likely to be contentious, as it is with your case, the best thing to do is propose those edits on the talk page before adding them. That allows people to discuss your proposed changes, and because they've had a chance to contribute to them, they aren't as likely to be opposed to their addition. Also, it allows people to better see good faith on your part and your motivation to improve the article. What they're seeing right now instead, I think, is someone who doggedly keeps trying to add the same thing in, and they are frustrated. And so are you. This is not good.

The good thing about this situation though is that everyone involved wants to improve the article. And since everyone has a similar goal, this issue should be resolvable. Again, please don't leave Wikipedia on a bitter note, especially if you feel you have information that can improve it. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 16:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, saw the comment, I have like 900 pages on my watchlist :p. Anyway, they're right. No issue is so big that you should leave Wikipedia over it, Mediation is a process that helps to resolve difficult conflicts, not for Wikipedians to leave because of them. I've offered my aid to Clicketyclick, in this case, as I mediated the Ming Dynasty case, on the article talk page, and the offer stands. But don't leave over this. :(

(talk) (review) 16:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I appreciate that you can have a calm altitude to talk to me, since it seems to me that people are hostile to me in the article. You may not follow the conflict of these 2 months, it's terrible, exhausting and I can no long stand it. Some guys are so obstinate and unprincipled that they almost drive me crazy. At the beginning, I had still some mediator's support, with which I could continue to edit. But everything has changed right now.

Let's talk about the article. Did you have read the article? What do you think about it? The title of article is "Tibet during the Ming Dynasty". But the article contains a large number of irrelevant events of the dynasties previous and following. I proposed to split the article into some new articles, with a result of an immediate removal of the template. Worse still, I chanced to find the some users are not honest to their arguments, because they modified the meaning that the scholars want to express. And it's worst that the vandalism cannot be avoided in editing the article, which I suffered most. In this case, do you think it still makes sense for me to stay? I can do nothing at all right now since the article has been made FA (so easily and imprudently).--LaGrandefr (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I never withdrew/had/gave support. Our role as mediators is to be neutral. The only thing I said in the MedCab case is that it isn't in our protection policy to indefinitely lock articles, and have arguments made, then changes made. Administrator's aren't to take sides in content disputes, and changes to a full protected article should only be uncontroversial ones, where there is full consensus for them, not where the Admin thinks one version is best. It's in our
  (talk) (review) 16:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

3) Please do not describe Bertport and Pericles as vandals (you refer to their changes as vandalism.) Again, they've put a lot of work into the article, and when someone calls them a vandal, well, they're going to be immediately put on edge and not take you seriously. You told me that your aim is to improve the article. How is that going to be accomplished with such an adversarial tone and everyone resentful of each other? The way you behave is not conducive to your goals and aims. I think you need to begin by recognising their contributions to the article before you can expect them to recognise yours.
So with that in mind, let's talk about what it is that the scholars meant and let's sort through the problems. This way, not only will we resolve the conflict, but we'll also improve the article. I have access to my university's library and am happy to go through each issue, one at a time, and help to sort all this out. But this needs to happen without such an adversarial tone. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 17:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you consider retracting your statement on the Spore article? Feel free to look over the Mediation Archives and the MedCab case, but the references are there, as the reason it went to MedCab was over the genre. Feel free to reply on my talk page. Cheers.

Re: the date commas - Wikipedia (Mediawiki) dates do not include commas - these will automatically be inserted based on preferences. See

userpage? It lends you a bit of credibility when others don't see a redlink in your sig. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 07:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Where does it specifically state that? I do not see it. American format demands commas marking off the year. When people don't have their own preferences, they must at least see a grammatical format. Consensus was reached a while ago that the entire article would take American style. To answer your question, I am much too busy editing when I am on Wikipedia to make a vanity page. All that I need to lend me "credibility" is my edit count and if others see a redlink an assume negative things, then they're

violating guidelines. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 07:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

(after edit conflict with Clicketyclick) Ironically, commas, if included, are automatically removed based on preferences, too. Those two dates above appear exactly the same to me - without comma. Also, I may be reading it wrong, but

27 May 2008

is not a partial date in the same way as May 2008 is. Also, straight after the table, for a different example of what is recommended (with regards to repetition), examples are given using both a comma and not using one.

As I say, though, this really as a silly thing to edit war over, as for anyone logged in both forms appear exactly the same with preferences, so I hope neither of you end up getting blocked over it. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and reading on to the very next section,

WP:MOSNUM#Full date formatting, specifically says that the American format of "February 14, 1990" is acceptable. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for that, Walrus. I was indeed using MoS earlier to support my argument that commas are acceptable, that signed-in users with preferences see it in their format anyway, yet users without preferences or anonymous surfers should see the American format (for consistency, explained in the guidelines.) Addressing your concerns, there was no danger of an edit war. Since it was a very tiny issue that did not require being taken up on the talk page and there is no policy that states that using the edit summary to explain reverts is incorrect, Sabre and I were just explaining ourselves through the edit summary. Sabre removed all commas around dates under the mistaken impression that because he didn't see them, no-one else did and they were useless. I reverted with explanation. Sabre reinserted them with a counter-argument that it should be left up to the person's preference. I reverted and explained the mistake in that thinking (registered user preferences override whatever format is in the article, which is why he didn't see them.) There were no further edits by Sabre, nor any message on my talk page or the discussion page following that—presumably, he accepted that explanation and felt no need to pursue it. The matter was settled between Sabre and me until Vanderdecken gave me a warning and then reverted me. In any case, it's not just commas IN the dates that were being removed but the commas following the dates. It is a grammatical requirement to have commas after the year in American style. This may seem small, but articles fail FAC for poor grammar. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 08:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, pardonnéz moi (in other words, oh bugger), in my zeal I neglected to notice the phrase 'partial dates'. Have you discussed this consensus with S@bre? You just answered that. >.< —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you self-reverted and admitted your small mistake. If you would also strike out or remove the edit war warning from my talk page in light of all this, I would also appreciate it as it is the muddy tire-tread on my freshly driven snow of a record, and we redlinkers don't need any further marks against our credibility... clicketyclick_yaketyyak 08:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You got an edit war notice over this? I do apologise! I'm sorry to come back to this, but I'm afraid I've had to ditch the commas. I was reading the article through and the commas that aren't absorbed into the user preferences on date settings cause grammatical errors for users not using the US format. So, in the interests of grammatical correctness as this is the international English language version of Wikipedia rather than the American version of Wikipedia, so we should cater more than just American English, I've had to remove them. The page should now display correctly grammatically for American and International date formatting. -- Sabre (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You proposed a merger of Cumshot, Pearl necklace, Bukkake and Mammary intercourse. I think that Mammary Intercourse is not like the other three and should not be merged, however Facial (sex act) probably could be merged with the other three. I have merged the four and placed them in my sandbox if you should like to edit it. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realised Darren had done this - I have also proposed a merged article, slightly different from Darren's, at

龱 12:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for uploading Image:Game Wave.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   di-replaceable fair use disputed
   }}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]