Frungi

		The Original Barnstar
		For your help with editing State Military characters of the Fullmetal Alchemist anime I herby award you the barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh. —Frungi 03:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing other users' talk comments

Your correction to my comment on Talk:English language was proper. I meant to say what you corrected my statement to say. However, editing other users' comments is generally considered poor etiquette. In the future it might be better to send a message to the author to point the error out, and let the author correct it. In this situation, though, I didn't mind the correction, but next time you might not be so lucky!  :) —Fastolfe00 18:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Armin Meiwes

I see you have blanked the "See also" section in the Vorarephilia article. The link contained in this section and the subject are related, and this relationship is clearly outlined in the first source. Therefore blanking this section is not appropriate. Please do not do so again. If you wish to discuss the subject further (and I would encourage you to do so if you still feel it's important), then please do so in the article's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Semicolon

A year ago you removed the semicolon section of Help:Wiki markup. Why? I note that it is used in FA-rated articles like Painted turtle (in the Notes and references section). --Rontombontom (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the description at the time was inconsistent with the use discussed on the Talk page, and I wasn’t sure what it actually did, so I figured it’d be better not to have it listed than to have inaccurate or incomplete information. —Frungi (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Frungi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

131.91.71.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Deluca.mykela". The reason given for Deluca.mykela's block is: "Vandalism-only account".

• Blocking administrator: Graham87 (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Autoblock lifted. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Gwern

it is nearly impossible to edit with Gwern around the topic of "Neon Genesis Evangelion". people have avoided those articles due to that editor. its a clear issue of WP:OWN.Lucia Black (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I haven't looked into his edit history, but even if you're absolutely right, I think you're being too confrontational. I don't know who started it, but you're both keeping it going. If you can't resolve matters between yourself, I recommend you either avoid hiim as best you can or, if you really believe he's doing things so wrongly, report him. —Frungi (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Theres nothing wrong with stating the truth, i'm growing weary, and i would like more editors to work on those pages.Lucia Black (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding is all i do, but people see the incivility anyways. it's nearly impossible to get away from it all.Lucia Black (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Have either of you submitted an RFC/U for the other? From what you say, it sounds like that's warranted. —Frungi (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

No but if it happens again, i'll submit. I'm tired, Gwern has not seen a single edit of mind unless it involves Neon Genesis Evangelion. If i really want to edit those articles, i will, but right now other articles are in danger of being deleted or merged and i'm trying to keep them notable.Lucia Black (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The articles have significant ammount of refs and info. But the problem is that Gwern wants me to "add" info. Shows clear signs of a die-hard inclusionists meaning anything summarized and copyedited for a simpler prose will irritate him due to the lost of text in the article. Thats why Gwern calls my edits "worthless".Lucia Black (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Strange. He seems to have the opposite view on source citations. (See my edit to a <ref> here and discussion about it on that talk page and Gwern’s talk page.) —Frungi (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

i see it. Still, whats best for refs is using the citation template. I can understand if its done quickly due to time. For now im just making small edits and make a separate project article and see if the new layout works out.Lucia Black (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A person can "lose one's mind" but a player definitely "loses his pieces"

Thanks for your efforts to keep gender-neutral enthusiasm grounded in common sense. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. —Frungi (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Info on Ihardlythinkso

Here's something to know that none of us involved in the discussion on gender-neutral language even thought of until last night:

User:Ihardlythinkso is a not-so-civil Wikipedian who pretends to be civil. He makes WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT edits and uses them as a valid argument. Do you know this user very well?? If so, please reveal how much experience you have had with him independent of the gender-neutral language in chess articles discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's *me* alright, just a pretender -- a big fake. (Thought I could fool you, but you're too smart for me. Damn!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You must realize that a good Wikipedian has to be civil. Georgia guy (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty hypocritical, coming from someone with a GNL POV to push, enforced with violating WP:BRD, persistent Talk page baits, and reverting my User talk. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Georgia guy, I don't know him. But these personal attacks don't change the facts of this argument. Even an editor who evidently has a history of conflicts with him says he's right here. Please stop changing the subject mid-discussion. —Frungi (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the subject is understanding this user. This discussion began when he reverted my edit to Antichess. Georgia guy (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the subject was the use of "he" in chess. —Frungi (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Move on...or don't,

but leave me out of it. That was disruptive. I've said all I'm going to say. Please do not approach me about this matter again. Tiderolls 07:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You’ve barely said anything after neglecting to do what you proposed, and what you did say was vague at best. You gave me no choice but to make my own assumptions. I didn’t mean to disrupt, but I didn’t know what else to do. I was being genuine in my edit summary. —Frungi (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

CSD#A7

CSD#A7 doesn't allow for the deletion of articles that don't show notability, but those that make no claim of importance or significance. Being knighted is an indication of significance. Being Minister of Finance of the Western Region is an assertion of significance, I think. Being awarded the Brilliant Star of Zanzibar, First Class is probably a claim of significance. And so on. As an additional note, you shouldn't renominate articles for speedy deletion that've been declined by an admin, even if they meet the criteria - except perhaps G12. Repeatedly nominating something for speedy deletion is generally taken to be disruptive. If it's declined but you still think it should be deleted, go to AfD. (Or possibly, try PROD?) WilyD 11:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. Seems I misunderstood the criterion. I PRODed the article, and that appears to have spurred some source gathering, which (even though I’d never heard of the man or anything about him) makes me happy. I thought about removing the notice since it now has sources, but I didn’t want to risk interrupting the apparent beneficial effect. —Frungi (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'll consider the point about a note on where to respond; personally, I don't really care. I wouldn't worry about the "needs additional citations" note either way; in my experience, I've never seen them be useful, but I've never seen them be harmful, either. If you want to remove it go ahead, it you don't, don't, and don't lose sleep over it, eh? WilyD 08:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant the PROD notice. And yeah, seems the PROD did more good for the article in a day (from 0 sources to 5) than {{unreferenced}} did in three years. There’s something very, very wrong with that. —Frungi (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood. FWIW, PROD notices should never be re-added. If anyone contests a PROD, AfD is the only way forward. WilyD 10:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I know, but thanks. But since the article’s actually sourced now, I don’t think that’s necessary. I don’t know the guy from Adam, but I could hardly be happier with the outcome. =) —Frungi (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice

As an involved editor, you're invited to keep an eye on new developments at Star Trek into Darkness and its talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Enforcing the Break

Hi, I've created a nice quiet page about the possibility of enforcing a break from debating Star Trek into Darkness. Would you mind taking a look, and giving your opinions? You can find it here, and please feel free to invite anyone you feel would add to the conversation. drewmunn talk 12:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you know that you're cited here? :) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You're famous Frungi! Make sure you cite the page appropriately when referencing yourself. In fact, as per Wikipedia:COI you can't mention it and has to be added by another editor. ;) MisterShiney ✉ 21:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha, wow. They missed my subpage that replaced it, though! Oh well, I'm happy people found either one useful. And thanks for the compliments! —Frungi (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For your particularly useful and detailed summaries; without them, we'd be spending hours explaining the essence of months of debate. drewmunn talk 21:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

don't delete comments

Hello! re: [1]

People are often rather confused (and sometimes feel hurt) if you remove their comments from a discussion. Sometimes you can help by moving the comment somewhere more useful, but that's about the limit of it.

Keeping the wiki tidy is important, but people are important too, so remember to be nice!

For more detail: Talk page guidelines#Editing comments --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood, but I thought that comment seemed unproductive enough (and in a closed RM discussion) to warrant reverting. You do have a point, though. Rest assured I didn't mean to be mean. =) —Frungi (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Why?

Eh? RM procedures caused this huge media blowup. In my opinion we REALLY shouldn't be doing the same stupid thing twice. Further, the template is misleading, we are not currently actually using RM. That said, I've moved this to AN at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_reinstating_RM_after_being_told_not_to. I'd like to get some sleep ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm really confused now; since you seem to want to keep the page at the current location. Why are you sabotaging yourself? That doesn't seem smart. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan Vesey’s edit summary: We should leave the template until an uninvolved user closes it. And unless I’m mistaken, you’ve been the only one to remove it so far. —Frungi (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

* I don't quite understand though... how does this behaviour Improve wikipedia according to you ?

* What marks me as involved, according to you? I have no opinion on the article myself, I have never edited it.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You’ve taken part in discussion prior to the start of that RM. As for the first question, I defer to Ryan’s comments on the matter. —Frungi (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(For the record, although we disagree on this topic right now, you seem very nice too! )

You don't get to defer on the first question :-P For any particular question or thing, you have to determine for yourself if you agree with them or not. (There's no hierarchy or anything else on wikipedia to tell you what to think, so you have to think for yourself! ;-). I'm very interested to hear how/why you think your own action here benefited Wikipedia, in your own words. Is that a fair question?

I had taken part in discussions specifically with regards to procedures to be followed, and with regards to procedures to be followed only. This as a direct consequence of the previous RM failing. I then made the procedural remark that we should not be having a 3rd RM. Especially also on the basis that the 2nd RM had been speedied with reference to AN.

It's like standing in an exploded building, and not knowing if there's still explosives or gas around... and then seeing some dude lighting a match.

DUDE! --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC) ;-)

I said I agreed with him, and I think he explained the rationale well enough. This current RM succeeded in a way, but it would probably be best to still show support for it. But right now, I think we both need sleep—or I do at least, and you’d mentioned it. =) Good night. —Frungi (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

:-/ alright, well, goodnight! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For all your effort in trying to maintain some form of order in the aftermath of xkcd-gate. Nobody killed anybody, which I see as something to be proud of. drewmunn talk 10:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

work title capitalization

In answer to this, yes, many are / do. If you'd like to help do something about that fact, go here (note: I'm not out to "recruit" you – maybe you vehemently disagree with my views on this, who knows? –, merely trying to utilize the attention this has drawn to get more people involved than normally frequent the WT:MoS, as everbody is affected by the decisions made there, although most folks most of the time are not aware of that fact). – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Appreciated, but quite frankly, this whole debacle has kind of put me off discussing WP rules. Maybe I’ll change my mind, but for now I’ll just post my thoughts and leave it. —Frungi (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. :-( What was/were the thing or things that put you off most? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

General frustration with how much of an unnecessary ordeal the whole thing was. —Frungi (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow. Why/how did you put up with it at all? <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I’d hoped that both sides could reach consensus. But the issue seems to be resolved now, and the opposing side still opposes, and neither side really learned anything from the other. Now that I’ve said it, I realize that what frustrates me is the fact that, in the end, nothing was gained from the whole debate. Maybe it exposed problems with the MOS, but none of this should have been necessary to provoke that discussion. Edit: I’m sorry to be venting like this. But hey, it’s my Talk page =D —Frungi (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You're fine to vent. If you're on very often, it might help you to help fix things like this. It saves venting;-)

I used to specialize in fixing stuff way back when. Then I Got A Life (tm). These days I just drop in when things asplode very bigly, and (try to) do damage control, at least. FWIW. I imagine Mackensen is of the same sort these days. :)

I hope we at least made the pain stop ... for a while!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC) TINC

huh?

How were you wrong on your own talk page? I'm confused. lol. MisterShiney ✉ 18:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The above post where I complained that no one learned anything from the debate and lost my faith in humanity. Er, Wikipedianity. The post I replied to on your Talk flatly contradicts that, so thanks. =) —Frungi (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh now that makes sense. Sorry, I was in post teaching recovery mode. Having been running around after 30 7-8 year olds I was beat lol. But that's cool. :) MisterShiney ✉ 11:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ooops. My bad. I really didn't mean for this to happen. It almost never happens!! People just pop up, say nay/yay and that's it. I seem to have started Trek Wars 3. MisterShiney ✉ 11:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Is that where Wesley gets thrown into the lava by Obi-Wan and turns to the grey side? ;-) Hmm, maybe too soon

Do we have to call The Big Guns in again, do you think? <worries> --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

notification of current state of work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS

Hi. As you're one of those folks who contributed to the work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS but then seemed to tune out (and therefore – as opposed to the "MoS regulars" – probably didn't follow it any further), I just briefly wanted to point you towards my latest post there (beginning with "As there has been little progress"), which might well be the last overall: I'm phasing out, and since there hasn't been much input by other users lately, it's likely that over the next few days, the thread'll die (i.e., disappear into the archives) without there having been made any changes to the MoS. So I'd be much obliged if you took the time to stake your support for or opposition to my proposal (should I also have put an RfC tag there?) and – unless it's accepted (I'm not holding my breath...) – maybe even considered keeping the debate going. Thanks. (I'm aware of the unsolicited nature of this message, so if you feel molested by it, I apologize.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I appreciate it. I’m honestly not for or against your proposal; what’s more important to me is that the encyclopedia reflects real-world usage for each title. There’s already precedent for this, but currently they’re “exceptions” rather than the rule. To the RfC question, honestly, your post is far too long for that—RfCs should be neutral, short, and to the point. —Frungi (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the thanks! Just took a look at WT:MoS, and I agree with your and BD2412's caveat – if there is clear evidence for conflicting official usage –, so I'd have no issue with adding that. But even without it, I'd argue that [prep] prop 2 would be a much better fit for title styling than what's currently used. As for RfC-suitability, I'm not exactly literate when it comes to the procedural side of Wikipedia; also, this whole thing has kinda worn me down, so I thought someone else or several other users might take this forward – someone like you and/or BD2412; BDD has also expressed interest. Ironically, with me out of the picture, this might actually get somewhere... – who'd have thunk? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

“As for RfC-suitability, I'm not exactly literate when it comes to the procedural side of Wikipedia”—Me neither, but I’m just going off of WP:RfC#Statement should be neutral and brief. —Frungi (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not getting back in, but with regards to this, you can point out this. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to know you're still following it. I'm not sure what you mean, though. —Frungi (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, unless I completely misapprehend the situation (always possible with me), what's going on there is that he's been participating in wholly artificially making up MoS work title capitalization rules (concerning titles containing parentheses; see his contribution at the bottom of that page). In other words, if NOR applies to [prep] prop 2 (which, at least, is deeply ingrained in real-world usage), it applies to those rules to the power of ten. In still other words, it seems to me a case of "preaching one thing, practicing another". But then again, this is Wikipedia, and it's not the first time that it felt to me like on here, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Yeah, it does kinda seem like that’s what he’s doing. If he does have a source for those suggestions, he’s at least not citing it. —Frungi (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. I just collapsed our discussion of your !vote, leaving your comments intact (and viewable with a click) and your !vote above the collapse. I didn’t think it would be a problem since editors are clearly able to carry on a discussion within a collapsed section, which is how discussions of !votes took place in the section at the top of WT:AT. I’m also not sure what opinions you felt I was trying to censor that weren’t given in your !vote (which, again, I did not collapse). But I assure you I had no intention of “censoring” anything; if you (or anyone) had supported the change and our discussion about why you supported it had run as long as it did, I would have wanted to collapse it for the same reasons. —Frungi (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Still, it's not good practice to hide an ongoing discussion. And as for refactoring others' comments, WP:TPO advises that you should "normally stop if there is any objection". There was clear objection from me, but you paid no heed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Userboxes/Using existing

I tried to use a userbox and fell into a vat of chocolate mess too big for me. See
Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Wikipedia:Userboxes article is almost entirely transclusions. Thnidu (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vedic_mathematics_(book)

Please participate. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Don’t think I can contribute much. The extent of my involvement with that article was to be confused by it. —Frungi (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The End of Evangelion may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, nice, had no idea there was such a bot. Thanks! he replies to an automated message. —Frungi (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

DBZ

I hope you see through Ryulong's accusations at Dragon Ball talk. The RFC which was decided by consensus long before need not be formally closed, but I had requested the close prior to the bot's archival. The close came after the archiving, but was not needed as it was obvious. I'm glad to have continued discussions, because I don't think I alone can make a Dragon Ball Z article up to GA or FA class, but I hope that as a group we can come to some decision about what the focus and necessary requirements would be. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, true or not, I don't think any of those accusations are particularly relevant. This isn't about whether or not policy forbids or encourages a split; it's about whether it makes sense to split. My answer is a firm and definite "maybe." —Frungi (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hence, why I'm trying to hear everyone out. I'll build up the sandbox some more later, I just need ideas for what should be included and what should be focused on. I do appreciate the input though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mattel regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mattel. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I’ve just noticed this… notice. If you’re watching: Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hiding comments

The whole topic is whether people should be encouraged to go and edit talk pages for accessibility and I was pointing out that it could annoy editors. So what did you do? You said you didn't realize - then marked it as off topic and hid it. Please just think for a tiny amount of time about how insulting and annoying what you did is and whether encouraging others to do like you is a good thing. Dmcq (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand, and I said as much in my edit summary when hiding it. It was off topic. The goal of that discussion is to determine which types of pages MOS:ACCESS applies to, or should apply to. Your and my hidden replies were about how I applied a different guideline (WP:TPO#interruptions) to do something much more intrusive and noticeable than removing blank lines—and again, I’m sorry for doing that. But it had nothing to do with the question of how much of the project we should make accessible.

I sincerely apologize for any offense I’ve caused, but I hope you believe me when I say that none was intended. —Frungi (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I was illustrating the section that would be affected. I just noticed coming down here the text under #March 2013. I would prefer you took some notice, I was not interested in getting an apology about this. Dmcq (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:LISTGAP is not the only section of the guideline that a conscientious editor could apply on Talk pages, and editing others’ comments isn’t the only way to do it. We’re just giving that undue weight because of one editor’s actions. That’s one reason I started a more focused discussion on a more general question. —Frungi (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You might be interested

... in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ccroberts123 back from block, resuming same behaviour. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

western =/= english

English e cyclopedia does not mean we're focused o western point of view. Especially if that media originates from non english countries.Lucia Black (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

But it does mean that we’re focused on an English-language point of view, doesn’t it? Specifically in this case, the impact of a subject on English-speaking culture. Of course, the article in its entirety shouldn’t have that focus (unless the article is something like [[Cultural impact of (subject) in (region)]], but surely a substantial portion. —Frungi (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Basically, but thats what the article is leaning toward in the sandbox. We are against it mainly because the need and resources are low of DBZ despite what fans consider. Theres also the confusion of it being just the second half of the manga, relabeled DBZ in english audience. It doesnt mean it supercedes the original work. The new info in the sandbox is better suited in the list of dbz episodes. And some of it is written in such a superfluous way. Theres a shorter, simpler, and less superfluous way to present the info.Lucia Black (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:So fix it. I don’t see the problem here. I believe this editor has expressed a desire in the past for others to collaborate with him on the sandbox article, unless my brain’s making things up. —Frungi (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

We cant collaborate. Thats the problem. Even if be says he does, he still wont recognize the issues we presented. To the point where he pushes his version early, and when reverted puts it at DRN merely because me and ryulong were the ones who responded most recently. Ignoring all other participants.Lucia Black (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case, simply wait for it to fail, after which he’ll undoubtedly be more open to collaboration. Remember, there is no deadline. —Frungi (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry, but i didnt come here to ask for advice but to help you understand the situation. I will not wait for a failure to be obvious. No deadline is like saying give up. I explained it to you. I think it would be better to oppose the current stand rather than just lazily allowing it.Lucia Black (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

“Allowing it” isn’t a factor. He has just as much right to create a new article in his sandbox as you or anyone else do. Do with my unsolicited advice as you will, but you could create your own split article free of all the problems you perceive in his. —Frungi (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Youre not understanding. He's moving the info into wikipedia's main namespace, not leaving it in his. And im not supporting the splitx but im not closed to the idea. It would be better for a universal N on-user dominated sandbox to be presented. But just in case you tell me "then do it" I already proposed it in DBZ talkpage. But im not liking the whole "you do it" attitude. Im merely explaining what you do not know.Lucia Black (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but “you do it” is central to Wikipedia, as I understand it. That’s why WP:BOLD is so widely cited. But I admit I was mainly reacting to the concept of the split and not the reality, and for that I apologize. I also apologize for offering unwanted advice, but my first reaction to being presented a problem is usually to try to help, ill-advised as it may be. —Frungi (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize aswell. The editor is dragging me to DRN and im a bit on edge. Thank you for understanding. I proposed a non-user sandbox in the talkpage, your opinion is most welcomed.Lucia Black (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edit Frungi; I edit conflicted (lol) - but I'm trying to find and track down all these Nielsen ratings and such for the article at the requests of Ryulong and Lucia. Found some good stuff so far. I'd like to ask your opinion on the matter; given this little side conversation here, but only if you which to provide one. The sandbox variant still needs a lot of work, but thanks for your assistance! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help, as I indicated directly above. And though I fear you wouldn’t like it, I’ve given my opinion at DB Talk, which I’m sure you’ve already seen. —Frungi (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Honestly; my only issue was with Ryulong edit warring by removing the content after he decided to abandon talking about the issue. I asked him to stop editing the sandbox so he made another revert with the edit summary of "no".[2] I believe that behavior and mentality says a lot about the situation. I've gone an added some Japanese production sources and content (I want it all sourced if possible) and expanded quite a bit, but I'll spare you the details here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As a (arguably somewhat) uninvolved third party, I suggest and request that you give Ryulong another chance. I’ve made a proposal on that Talk page which I believe is the ideal way to go about building up that unfinished article at the moment without stepping too hard on anyone’s toes. I figure excess information can be removed when it’s so full of gorram useful and relevant information that you feel the need to trim what you’ve added. —Frungi (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: Wetdogmeat

I think it's best if we just let them rant and rave using nonsensical arguments. If they keep it up they may be subject to action per WP:CIR due to their apparent inability to read anyway! PantherLeapord (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree: I have no reason to believe the account is used by multiple users (you used a plural pronoun to refer to it). And it's not that his arguments themselves are nonsensical; some of his arguments simply rely on nonsense, such as reproducing the cover art of American Desperado. If you look past the nonsense, he does have some points worth considering. —Frungi (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to see any that haven't already been refuted! PantherLeapord (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:W-B-X (W-Boiled Extreme)

I apologize for not seeing your concerns about the requested move earlier, but I have commented regarding your proposal and the proposals of the others.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Titles for metropolitan areas

Hello, Frungi! I have undone your addition [3] to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). The discussion at the talk page was still open and consensus was not clear. You were the proposer of that discussion and you took a very active part in it. For you to undertake to decide what the outcome was, and add it to the guidelines, was improper in my opinion. Let's wait until some neutral third party closes the discussion before adding anything to the guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Though I still think there was only one person opposing the change by the time I made it, and that the person opposing it was operating under misinformation, I see your point. I should have left it to someone else to determine consensus. —Frungi (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

commas

Hello - you participated in the RM at Talk:Rochester, New York metropolitan area. There is a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Commas_in_metro_areas which may interest you. If you have not done so, please consider contributing to the survey or discussion. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Other way around, actually, Dohn joe. I learned of the Rochester area RM from the WP:PLACE debate. You may have noticed I've been active in that debate. —Frungi (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know. This was from an overexuberant sense of avoiding canvassing. Sorry for the bother. Dohn joe (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, heh. No bother, I was just a little confused by the notice. But thanks all the same! —Frungi (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

GI Joe chronology citations

That can be easily remedied by citing the trade paperback volumes of the comics which themselves contain the issues in chronological order. Just like we cite books for some of the articles. Plastelin (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

A discussion you may be interested in is this RFC, a proposal to make the second comma in a date/place optional. United States Man (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread about MOS RFC

Hi, I've just seen this. My view was that the lack of response at ANI just implied that nobody thought it worth taking up, and I was letting it rest on that basis. Was there anyting I should have done but didn't? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don’t know about should have; I just felt it was odd to see your notice as the last word on the matter when it was apparently decided to take no action. If this is standard practice with ANI requests, I apologize for making presumptions. —Frungi (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I see, but mine wasn't the last word on it. I posted on ANI at 18:04 on 27 Oct, then immediately notified at WT:MOS at 18:07. That was just notification. I imagined other people might then want to have their say, but I saw no further role for me. User:United States Man posted his opinion at 18:44 the same day, and there were no further posts. I didn't want or feel entitled to press it any further if nobody wished to take it up. ANI threads are archived automatically after 36 hours of inactivity, which is what happened. Does that make sense? --Stfg (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I meant on the MOS Talk page itself. I expected to see the ANI outcome (or lack thereof) at least mentioned on that Talk page. But maybe that’s just me and there’s generally no such expectation; I honestly don’t know. Either way, sorry for my vagueness here. —Frungi (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry for. In fact, I don't really know either. I think your note there is useful, anyway. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA

I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates for further discussion (because we need more of that). —sroc 💬 08:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Two sentences in Chelsea lead

Hi, Please consider restoring in the Chelsea lead the sentence, "While in the Army, Manning was known as Bradley and diagnosed with gender identity disorder."[4] instead of having the two sentences currently there, "Throughout her early life and Army career, Manning was known as Bradley. While she was in the Army, she was diagnosed with gender identity disorder."[5] --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: I don’t believe I replaced that sentence with those two. But if he was known as Bradley before joining the Army (which he was, no?), then isn’t putting it as only “While in the Army” kind of misleading? —Frungi (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you replaced it, so we're OK in that regard. I see what you mean by misleading, but I don't think many readers would see it that way. One could make a similar type of criticism of the first of the two sentences since Manning became known as Chelsea while in the Army and will continue to be in the Army until she is released from prison. ("Throughout her early life and Army career, Manning was known as Bradley.") Getting bulletproof wording here is tough.

But I think my main concern with the two sentences (although I have others too) is the use of feminine pronouns. Like the second sentence which says, "While she was in the Army, she was diagnosed with gender identity disorder." I think in common usage, that sentence would be interpreted as meaning that a biological female felt like a male. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I’ve just edited it, and I believe I’ve somewhat addressed your concerns. If you want to revert back to the single sentence, I still think it makes it sound like he wasn’t known as Bradley before the Army, but beyond that I have no objections. —Frungi (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice work. I tried to build on that so that the first sentence was without pronouns and combined with the second to get, "From early life through much of Army life, Manning was known as Bradley, and was diagnosed with gender identity disorder while in the Army." --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Chelsea Manning. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@Yworo: I don’t believe I did. If you do, please qualify such claims rather than leaving a vague, generic message like this one; not only is it uninformative, but it may be considered disrespectful. Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas. Herostratus (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)