User talk:TomXP411

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Cross-posted from Talk:Evil Inc.) It's possible that the subject of your article is encyclopedic, I can't know that because I haven't read it and haven't seen indication that it qualifies for Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Was this web-comic the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself? If so, you should provide these sources in the article to establish notability.

As to Wikipedia being biased against web-comics, there's a grain of truth in that. There are independent guidelines for web-content, but they are still geared towards establishing notability. Still, many articles that qualify against the criteria for inclusion do exist on Wikipedia (see Category:Webcomics for examples). LeaHazel : talk : contribs 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Live, O Evil 2 Character listing 3 SmackBot 4 linking to wikinews 5 Hi there! 6 Rewrite 7 Confused? 8 Monitors 9 Happy Holiday to you and your family 10 XM Sirius Merger 11 A Village pump (assistance) Barnstar

[edit] Live, O Evil

Palindromes rock.

Anyway. The point is that the Evil Inc. article has been restored, and edited so that all the stuff that establishes it as notable is now included in the article. The version that was deleted was basically just a cast list - and any webcomic can have a cast list. DS 04:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, DS. Guigar will be most pleased, as will the rest of the fans. I'm sure there will now be a flurry of edits as people flesh out the article. TomXP411 06:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character listing

Hi. I noticed that you reverted the character listing on the Evil Inc. page. Thank you.

I just wanted a clarification. I believe that, even without explicit permission, listing a comic's characters isn't a violation of copyright. Is there a Wikipedia policy one way or another? I'd just like to have something to point people at if this kind of thing happens again.

Thanks. TomXP411 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've taken it as a given. In my 3+ years here this is the first time I've seen this. Odds are that whoever did that will shut up soon enough with no long-term consequences, but if he doesn't, I'll put up a note at the smart people's noticeboard and ask for one. --Kizor 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this article will be a hotspot for a while - both good and bad. Thank you again for the help. It's appreciated. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomXP411 (talk • contribs).

Hey, any time. Welcome to the tour of the sausage factory, folks. ;) --Kizor 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SmackBot

Thanks, all found and fixed now. Rich Farmbrough, 21:34 20 February 2007 (GMT).

[edit] linking to wikinews

Please see my comment on talk:XM/Sirius merger, as well as various stuff happening at wikinews (I'm assuming it was your article over there). Bawolff 08:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there!

Hi there! I noticed your edits on User talk:AKMask, and thought I'd drop you a line to alleviate any concerns you may have about potential vandalism stemming from that user on the XM/Sirius merger article. It's clear that you two are engaged in a content dispute, and while it's clear that you disagree with his edits, it's also clear that his edits are not vandalism. Edits made in good-faith are never vandalism, and for you to assert them as such is a bit of bad faith on your part. It's not a huge deal or anything; I just wanted to clarify that there is no vandalism to be worried about. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 06:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing! For what it's worth, it doesn't appear that either of you were acting particularly out of sorts and I'm glad that you all have appeared to "take it to the talk page", so to speak. Also, you're a bit too harsh on yourself, mate! You've been doing good work, and Wikipedia is lucky to have you as a volunteer! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 06:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Yeah, that sort of format Is what we mean by encyclopedic fashion... we write about whats happening, not that its happening. Sorry If I was a bit terse earlier, I've been dealing with a lot of newer editors lately, which means I have to be in compliance with WP:BITE even when I dont want to be, so I'm looser with editors such as yourself who have some edits under their belt. Anyway, found some free time and decided it might be easier to just show what I meant. Lists, although useful for categorizing things, are generally a sign, in actual articles, of someone either a bit unsure of their prose or who just didn't have the time. Either way we like to put them in an encyclopedic tone :) -M^ask 05:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

think we should make a category for ypg chair's, this guy wasn't that good that he should go in the main bcs category

[edit] Confused?

Hello,

I don't understand why you keep removing the young chairs' category, we're trying to add to the wikipedia entries around the BCS.

We are actively chasing details about the YPG Chair's, a significant post, with signiificant responsibilities and many former chairs' have gone on to achieve great things.

It is inappropieate to add Chairs' directly to the British Computer Society Category as the names by themselves don't mean much.

We would like to therefore create a category under the British Computer Society, call it whatever you like, but something like BCS Young Professionals Chairs,

thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.143.240.33 (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Monitors

Well, if you have more monitors than the Neb, how many do you have 0.o? --Hojimachong^talk 06:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

4, at the moment. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 07:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holiday to you and your family

Trampton 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] XM Sirius Merger

Tom, First, you should check your facts. Its George Washington University, not Georgetown University that you are thinking of as being involved with NAB. Its an important distinction. I hope you gave the report cited a more thorough read than your reading of articles discussing the NAB-George Washington University connection. It raises points that go far beyond the scope of the antitrust issues that are discussed in the article. The issues surrounding the merger are far more complicated than a simple merger to monopoly.

Second, the entire article appeared biased to me, so I added a section discussing the possible negatives that could stem from the merger. A section entitled benefits followed by a section entitled hurdles implies that a merger is a positive thing, and that it only has to jump through the hoops for these supposed benefits to materialize. So, in the meantime, for impartiality, I'm going to have to remove the benefits section, because there is no discussion of consumer harm to balance out the alleged consumer benefit that a monopolist would graciously give to consumers.

Thanks, Antitrustbust

Chris, I have taken your comments under advisement and created a more neutral description of your arguments. Again, considering your conflict of interest in this matter (you are part of a political lobbying group), it is better that you propose changes first in the article's discussion page and let users help edit the changes in to an unbiased form. Then the content can be introduced in to the main article. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My name isn't Chris. Why are you presuming to know my name?

[edit] A Village pump (assistance) Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		As a top contributor to Village pump assistance, you deserve this barnstar. Thank you! Jreferee (Talk) 05:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)