January 2006

See your welcome message, above! Go for it! 20:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm using this a lot now! Tyciol 18:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually barely done anything to the article yet. As for the links to Trudeau's arrests, I might add that or I might not use "con man". The main article on Trudeau lists the problems he's run into. Thanks for the input. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyciol, it's no problem! Nice to meet someone else interested in the subject. By the way, I just looked over your user page. If you need any help understanding the subjects you listed, feel free to contact me. --Uthbrian (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Uthbrian, I'm really impressed by your user page and look forward to discussing caloric restriction on the talk page and updating the article to be most accurate. Tyciol 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for the support! See ya 'round, "alyosha" (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hola. Quick explanation of the revisions made:

• Most external links were removed as they didn't fit within the
  guidelines
  . As interesting as some of the ones were listed — I visited most, and none were bad — they didn't fit into the somewhat narrow criteria of what should be linked to.
  
• The Discovery Channel mention was removed mostly because it was fragmentary and without reference. A citation would be nice, but it was mostly a judgment call; restore it if you'd like.
  
• I removed the "fanimutation" reference simply because it's another word for animutation, and linked to the same article, and therefore didn't add much.
  

I'm glad to discuss any of this on the article's talk page, but thought it'd be helpful to add an explanation for you here. Deadsalmon 02:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'll agree on the discovery channel one (I honestly never heard of it, and I shouldn't take any rumour someone puts up as fact) and I guess the Fanimumation link is annoying, I think a lot of the links are relevant. Many of them are for discussing the guy, and far more informative than his website, which would be solely biased towards his products, not to mention very messy. I'm not sure which of the guidelines some break... but what's wrong with forums? Tyciol 00:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Generally, forums don't contribute much, if anything, in terms of adding encyclopedic content (or verifiable reference material). Take a look at the guidelines at

brilliant prose

[should not be linked to]," and "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link."

I tend to be somewhat deletionist when deciding what external links to keep, though. Another general guideline I try to follow, although others may contest it, is not linking to sites that don't take a serious approach to the subject in question. Of course, there's some flexibility to be allowed there, but it's why I removed sites like the "Loser of the Year" award, the RPG game, and the satirical Fade to Black interview (as entertaining as I found them). The Slashdot one is sort of a grey area, since some people are asking serious questions and others are just making fun of Chiu. I suppose I have something of a "WP is not Google" mentality. In the end, if an external site is of sufficient importance, I figure it'll wind up here again eventually.

In any case, I wouldn't be wholly opposed to bringing a few more links in, now that you've read a longwinded explanation of my link-erasing tendencies. Were there any specific ones you had in mind to restore? I'd be glad to collaborate some more on this. Deadsalmon 02:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess my main issue is that the three websites only link to his sites, meaning there'd be a bias. The one I'm largely interested in restoring is the first three forum links, since it is where people chat about the sites, and he posts on it and stuff. The rest are pretty useless, I'd agree with you. The Kazaa Lite thing doesn't belong in a link I guess, I'll probably mention it in the article instead, since it's so longwinded. By the way, don't you think Wiki needs to get some kind of new chat system? Having to edit both user-chat pages every time must be exasperating eh? --Tyciol 19:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that; although I suppose we could always get on the WP channel on IRC (which I don't even know how to use). Perhaps one forum would suffice, though, in keeping in the spirit of the fansite rule listed above. I'll leave it to you to determine, because I have the impression that you have a better familiarity with the forums than I do. Deadsalmon 21:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made a good call here. You're quite right. --

You're welcome. I greatly value critical organizations, but they too do deserve criticism, especially in the cases of being countercriticism defending an industry. Tyciol 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the "Trudeau's Past" passage because it doesn't belong there. This isn't censorship, it's just that Trudeau's past is better covered in the article about Trudeau, which is linked throughout the 'Natural Cures' article. Anybody could and would go there for information on Trudaeu's past. The 'Cures' article already mentions in passing his previous run-ins with the law and the fact that he's marketed many products before. It's poor grammar and shortage of actual information just seals the deal. I'm going to go ahead and delete it again. --72.224.182.201 11:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, three more things:

1. I made those edits (and my first comment here on your talk page) without being logged in. You can direct future responses to this username rather than my IP address.
2. You shouldn't assume the worst, at least before you've discussed a matter with someone. Your accusing me of 'censorship' on behalf of Trudeau right off the bat is not good Wikipedia etiquette, and not very smart considering the unflattering details I added at the same time.
3. I removed the phrase 'convicted con-man' because it's not encyclopedic. I replaced it with a sentence at the end stating that he has served time in jail for misleading and exploiting consumers, which says the same thing, with less of an obvious axe to grinde. See Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines.

Thank you so very deeply, and chill out. --relaxathon 11:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"con-man" is the part I objected to. It's a loaded term that shouldn't be dropped in somebody's description, no matter how sleazy they are. I replaced it with felon - which may in fact sound worse, but it's more technical. See, he was convicted of worse than lying about Mega Memory (which he still stands by), he actually stole his customer's credit card info and used it to gain cash, and before that he forged checks. Spent years in jail.

Anyway, updated the article again. Tell me what you think. --relaxathon 05:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neat I'll take a look. Tyciol 05:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week or so since the last warning and the IP has actually made the occasional positive edit, so I won't block them right away. I will keep an eye on it, though. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 20:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For more information about common abbreviations in edit sumamries please take a look here

Thanks! *checks it out* There are so many guide pages on Wikipedia it's hard to want to read them all, but as I become more serious and regular in making edits and patrolling I find they just seep in! Tyciol 01:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent activity by the bot here on this article I am curious why it deleted one picture but not the other. The other picture similarly lacks copyright information, yet it goes untouched. Does the bot not source old pictures before a certain date? Anyway, regardless of the copyright of the image (which I shall enquire of the one who posted it, Junbee1977, though tye do not seem active), it is direct evidence of a phenomenon I had already commented on the impossibility of, so having it in the article is most valuable for proving the possibility. Compared to a conceptual drawing, date unverified (so it still may be copywritten) is just as much intellectual property not touched. --Tyciol 08:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Image:Autocunnilingus.jpg, there are many reasons why it's not removing the image: (1) The image is on Commons, and the bot only deals with images on the English Wikipedia. (2) The image is tagged as having been created and placed under the CeCILL free license by its uploader. (3) The image is not tagged as having an unknown source, unknown license, or an uploader unaware of what the license should be. OrphanBot relies on human judgement to decide what images are problematic. (4) Even if it was tagged, OrphanBot works one image at a time, not one article at a time. Given the size of the "uploader doesn't know" category, it'll take OrphanBot about three days to work through all the images. --Carnildo 09:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. The medical studies are already linked to later on in the article, in the Citations to medical research subsection at the bottom of article. Cheers, --Fire Star 15:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I truly wish a meetup will be hosted in the GTA. And yes, I'm still in RH. I.H.S.V. (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Are you interested in Toronto Wikipedia Meetups? If so, please add Wikipedia:Meetup/Toronto to your watchlist and help us choose a place and time on the talk page. --unforgettableid | talk to me 19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 2006

Thanks for the heads up, added an updated warning. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious about your edits here. Does it really make any difference if there are spaces in a header? I haven't noticed any, but then I may not have looked in the right places....;-) --

I just find it saves slight data, and makes the page easier to view. It's also more uniform, since many pages use the bare minimum. Tyciol 18:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-The scene from Spiderman took place on the Queensboro Bridge and the Roosevelt Island tram. Nationalparks 07:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was rather confusing, glad to see a more accurate change, and I can finally take it off with watch list without concern since there's no more conflict, now that it has been explained :) Tyciol 18:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're interested, Tyciol, I've started an arachopedia article on "dork" http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/dork. I thought you'd be interested, because you seem to think the Wikipedia article should be revived. MegaBox 20:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. The thing is, I wrote that a while ago, because I thought it was lame that people took the article down because they were offended or something. Now I don't really care though... it's just slang after all. Tyciol 10:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 2006

Thanks for your edits to truthiness, it did clear up what was said. Though just to make sure, did you hear Stephen say "Fuck them!" or "Fuck wikipedia"? Thanks! --DragonWR12LB 07:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard "*BLEEP* Them!" It's pretty dynstinctive, one syllable rather than five, ending in 'em' rather than 'ah' and so forth. Tyciol 07:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was looking for a second opinoin as there has been argument over which of the two it was. --DragonWR12LB 07:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Thanks! I've gone there and with the help of others have made the article more relevant and meeting the standards. Tyciol 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use that ip and I dont think it is shared, i do NOT vandalise articles I use my username to edit 99% of the time and only add to articles not try to destroy them. Now unless this ip addy is used by others (ie: dynamic ip) I suggest you look into things before posting inaccurate warnings.

I'll look into this and see why I posted the warning. Tyciol 00:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was in reference to this. It's possible someone else did it using your computer (not logged in) or that, as you said, it's a mobile IP, if you did not do it. Tyciol 00:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well no one else uses my connection and I dont think it is a dynamic IP addy. It may be still however but you can be assured if you look at my record of edits that I dont vandalise Wikipedia nor did I ever see that article before this situation I cant even see the ip addresses edit in history.

Mike Beckham 17:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I can see that your named account did not, but not your IP. I'm pretty sure the editing records and the IP records do not lie, so someone did use that IP to vandalize. I have no assserted it was you, but if it is not, then you do have someone else using it, and should probably look into pursuing them, as well as other implications your IP might have regarding personal security. Tyciol 18:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently re-reverted your category changes at

You also said that the LOZ series characters article should be placed under the Plant characters category. I don't believe it is typical to place an article in a category when only a small portion of that article deals with the category. We cannot place pieces of an article in a category; categories are for whole articles. Is "The Legend of Zelda series characters" a plant character? Also, even if you do place the article in that category, alphabetizing it under D is very counter-intuitive. Take a look at Category:Plant characters and you will see just how strange this is. Pagrashtak 01:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've attempted to reach some clarity on this in the talk pages. My difficulty is that while I didn't create the category, a compilation of plant characters seems like a valid goal to me, and I would like to pursue aiding that whenever I encounter it. Should I divide the article, or make a separate one for the characters in it then? Tyciol 18:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diablo III has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 05:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owch, people sure seem gung-ho on removing it for some reason. I think it's good to keep it around since there is so much obvious hype about the game (or it would not have attracted attention) and it can be updated when it is finally released, maintaining the previous rumours and how they differ from the finished product. Tyciol 18:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've put the last version of the article before I deleted it at

talk 14:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Responded to on article's talk page. Tyciol 13:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 2006

Tyciol/2006, I can see from your

If you want to join, you can add yourself to the

Thank You. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 23:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 2006

The problem is that the categories are too vague and too subjective. What qualifies somebody as a speedster? Do they just have to be fast? If that's the case, then half the heroes created count as speedsters. Batman inspired? Just because there's a similarity doesn't mean there's an inspiration. That's the subject of lawsuits all the time. Yeah, I'm doing a lot of recategorizing, but that's mainly just moving things into a subcategory. That's how I'm learning the structure, what already exists and what's already duplicated. For example, since giants don't really exist, having Fictional giants as a subcategory is redundant. Just slow down, ask questions. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics is a great place to bring up these all encompassing questions. CovenantD 06:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may as well remove the Dialectic reference if you don't recognize the *about*, and not *exact* of synthesis patterns. The helix model in RNA and DNA is often cross-referenced in the thesis>antithesis>synthesis process. Hypotheses of development from youth to adult is correlated to kundalini development as well. I'd go into physics relativity; but I prefer not to be *exactly* suppressed. Thank you for your potential.. Dialectic 05:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused, are you upset with me for removing them? I admit, I am no expert on Kundalini so I may not understand the significance... or are you saying I should remove Dialectic from Kundalini? Feel free too if that was what you wanted, unfortunately I was not familiar with the term so I assumed it might be of some significance to the article *shrug*. Do you practise K-yoga? Tyciol 17:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stating that you are not familiar with Kundalini. Those of us who do exercise it prefer others that do not - not erase our expression through the honorable form of this Open Source work. --Dialectic 21:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to talk in plural or third person, you're upset I removed DNA or whatever. I just don't see what the link is, because there isn't one. Can you explain it? DNA is not a part of Kundalini teachings at all. That they both have a double helix is merely coincidence. Tyciol 14:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No relativity?.. Then why compare anything?.. Why ask why?.. Why not delete every entry on Wikipedia without inquiry?.. Why not suppress all open interaction?.. Thank you for your potential.. --Dialectic 20:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay to mention in the Kundalini article that Kundalini yogis note the similarity of kundalini scripture with that of the double helix discovered by James Watson. Referring to it in the article is fine, just not at the bottom of the article under 'See also', as it is not a directly related topic. Kind of like how in Naruto the word anime is mentioned, but it is not linked to at the bottom, only things that are of direct relation or a subcategory, like lists of characters or powers. Tyciol 21:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed!

Jamesters 09:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I have a question to ask. How do you know if thhe ending is canon or not??? If you do please tell me at the user talk page and tell me also if Julia Chang's endings from each game are canon or not. Ok thank you. MemoriesOfThePast2, 01 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO, Instead of a huge conference sort of thingy, a gathering of 3 to 4 people chatting and get to know each other is a better a way to spark meetups. Balancing the schedule of 4 people is easily than that of all Category:Wikipedians in Toronto. Send me a email if you are interested. I sent this message to User:Zanimum, User:Unforgettableid, User:Tyciol because they were most active at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Toronto. I.H.S.V. (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i'm 82.226.7.26, and I finally created an account =) But i'm new to Wikipedia editing, so just tell me everything about this "voting system" to get the Diablo III article back. --Kenelm Erfith 17:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_13#Members_of_Category:American_musical_groups_by_state -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 2006 (none)

August 2006

I think we should all sit down and drink and eat and what not. I propose a meetup at Future Bakery, on the corner of Brunswick and Bloor, on Wed. August 16, 2006 @ 7pm. Lets discuss it. joshbuddy, talk 15:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 2006

Hi Tyciol! I found your user name by a Google search for "barefooters wikipedia". As I don't see horses among your interests, I guess that you don't know that "barefooters" needs deambiguation... because it means too "user of a

I recently posted an article into The Horse's Hoof, a specialized horse magazine, encouraging "horse barefooters" to have a walk into wiki... so I add this meaning to your (so far one-member) category! Don't you mind about?

I took a look at your collection of user templates ... so I discovered a completely new face of wiki! well, I'll try to build up a "Barefoot horse user" template... there are so many examples! Thanks for your "suggestion"... really wiki is a complex adaptive system!--Alex brollo 07:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I had no idea, I use it to refer that I am mostly in bare feet all day, even when outside. Feel free to take the article for the horse if it is more common and in demand. I just couldn't think of what to call someone who goes sans-shoes. Although, if I may, wouldn't barehoofer be more appropriate? :p Tyciol 17:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tyciol! I learned something about userboxes, user templates and categories... and I created two new categories and templates. Take a "wiki look" if you want (Category:Wikipedians who love horses) for any mistake or misunderstanding (I found the whole matter a little tricky...)--Alex brollo 11:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I have a question about categories. You recently removed some categories from Windsurfing harness with too many cats in the edit summary. Could you please explain why having this article belong to several relevant categories is a bad thing? I was under the impression that adding articles to relevant categories would help them to be improved. Tug201 15:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll review my changes so I can clarify them to you: You added the categories Category:Windsurfing, Category:Water sports and Category:Boardsports to this article. These are all relevant. However, as it is a windsurfing harness, it is something that belongs to windsurfing. The windsurfing category is a member of the category boardsports and of watersports. Categories can both contain articles, or other categories as subcategories. In most cases, if something is classed under a subcategory, it is not also listed under it's parent category, as it would be excessive, as well as inappropriate. Listing it in this way helps establish a tree format of editing. While listing something in as many categories as possible would seem appealing, it crowds categories, and people looking to edit things in a certain category, say, boardsports, would find windsurfing harness which only applies to the specific boardsport of windsurfing, and not any other boardsport. Someone more likely to contribute to the article will have accessed the windsurfing category listed at the top of the boardsports and watersports categories. Tyciol 12:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tyciol, I now have a better understanding of this matter. Tug201 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tyciol,

1. No, I have never gone by the name "Master Diablo", in fact you are the first one to call me that.
2. D was not capitalised for historical reasons. Pre-Wikipedia, my username was mailer_diablo (how it came about is even more pre-historic). Hence I decided to capitalise my username here.

3. See User:Mailer_diablo/B.

4. Yes. I have both Diablo and Diablo II.

5. Just as I'm fan of games, unfortunately Diablo III wiolates the principle that

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

(Wikipedians are pretty strict on such things). However, if Blizzard Entertainment officially announces that it is developing Diablo III and you have concrete evidence to show as such, I'll be the first one to restore the article for you.

Hope that answers all your questions! :) - Cheers,

Put "Proactionary principle" up for speedy delete. Then simply move "Proactionary Principle" to "Proactionary principle". That way, you keep the edit history for the main article intact. --The Transhumanist 10:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2006

Okay, the

Oh, well I got most of them from the talk page, I just figured the other people didn't have time to put it up yet. Spanish was mentioned by User:Kd5mdk and seconded by User:207.200.116.198. While I certainly wouldn't replace any existing article with such a redirect, since it was unused I figure that anyone looking that up would be redirected here, until anything better came along to be used with the term. I guess I should have looked it up first, but generally that's more something one does with making full articles or making major changes to major articles, right, not just redirects? In those cases, I thought it would make sense to direct any conceivable reference to the best chance of it's proper reference, even in cases of slang. Just not creating articles purely based on slang. Still, since you found nothing, no harm in it's loss I guess. Tyciol 18:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated the article

Thanks, I've contacted the band and the National Dodgeball League. They seemed important enough to deserve an article but I'm hoping they can do the work in finding newspaper articles and stuff. Tyciol 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 2006

A tag has been placed on

Nice edits in good taste, thanks! =D Kmarinas86 04:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, thank YOU for the dotting and prior edits. Tyciol 05:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there already exists an article called Deaf-mute. Would you object to a redirect and merge? Cheers. Dina 21:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Nope, not at all, go ahead :) I'm surprised there wasn't a redirect already. Tyciol 21:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- I was suprised there wasn't a redirect too. I C&P'ed the whole article onto Deaf-mute's talk page, but I only put the literary/anime references into the article, as the first paragraph was a bit redundant with what was already there. Dina 21:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you deserve to be a mod already. How much longer until they grant you modship?

Jamesters! Hm, no, I don't think I could handle living up to that responsibility, though it would be fun so I could be a lazy mod who only edits things I care about. Anyway, nah, I might be a geek who edits a lot, but they're probably not always GOOD edits. Tyciol 05:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no, I don't think you have me on msn. I currently don't have it. I've had it before but then usually get bored of it and delete it but I'll install it again soon. I think I have your msn name so as soon as I get it installed again, I'll instant message you!

Jamesters 07:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I added you on MSN and AIM but haven't seen you on. When are you usually on and are you on often?

Jamesters 06:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I've added the "{{

You asked about getting more info on this guy. There are two books, Barren Lands: An Epic Search for Diamonds in the North American Arctic by Kevin Krajick and Diamonds: A Journey to the Heart of an Obsession by Matthew Hart that probably provide more details on his life. I tried researching him on the Internet and couldn't find out much about him personally. In particular his exact birthdate, number of children, where he grew up and where he currently resides. If you get the book, please add any details to the article. Clerks 20:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]