User talk:AC

Hello, AC. Welcome to Wikipedia.

A few tips for you to start going. (I'll send more if I see that I can help you :-)

• Check out Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers + the links in there.
• Sign your stuff on talk pages with ~~~~ It will convert to your username + the time.
• If puzzled, put a question on Wikipedia:Village pump, or feel free to ask me on my talk page if it's a very general question.
• Have fun.

-- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 07:15 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

AC, do you have a reference (issue #/date) for that Gary Groth quote? Is it from the Peter Bagge zine "I Hate Comics?" --Gothamgazette 03:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, that's "I Like Comics!" #1, (tho' there's a little caricature of Groth on the cover saying "I hate comics!". Yes, the quote's from there, but I was a dope and didn't check the wording, so the lead in might not be "a man should", possibly it's something slightly different. Please correct it if its mistaken; if not I'll check it soon.

At any rate, the quote seems to fit the paragraph, prior versions of which seemed a little prejudiced. --AC 07:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I agree that it was biased (not a Freudian slip, I promise). Thanks for digging that up!--Gothamgazette 03:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have undertaken the tweaks as discussed. Dgabbard (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The attitude you're slinging at me on Talk:Comics is getting annoying.

First of all, please stop calling me "Tv". Either address me by my user name, or take the trouble to find out what my first name is and use that if you want to be more informal than that. Making up a nickname for someone (especially someone you apparently dislike) is disrespectful and rude.

You seem to have a problem with the fact that Wikipedia has conventions and guidelines, and that I'm trying to follow them. "That's how we do things on Wikipedia" is sufficient reason to do it that way. It's not begging the question, it's appealing to all the prior discussions and the agreements that came out of them about how to do things here.

As one obvious example, there's the suggestion in the second bullet-point at the top of this page, for how to sign your comments on Talk pages, which really aids the readability of them. Either you didn't bother to read that, or you don't care, or you want to do things your own way just to be difficult. What's the deal with that?

I'm sorry if you don't like my style of writing here, but if you expect it to literally parrot other web sites, you're going to be disappointed, because they aren't encyclopedias. But Wikipedia is, which if you think about it, means it's going to include phrases that don't appear a lot in Google, because there's no need for them in other kinds of writing. There's a certain sort of precision needed for the housekeeping bits of an encyclopedia, and yeah, sometimes the result is a bit "dorky". Sorry. If you don't like the "tree of knowledge" approach, you've come to the wrong place, because that's what Wikipedia is all about.

---

AC here, long time no see Mr. V! Thanks a heap for the helpful tip on signatures, which unfortunately I'd never seen til now. Of course if failing to employ said trifle invalidates all one could say, then we may note that you must have been too busy to sign your own message above, and thus we're all sent to nit limbo.

On being both annoyed and disrespected; I'm afraid that our customs differ because annoying respect is hardly oxymoronic, unnatural, or unwholesome, at least not among the more democratic tribes. To annoy a king , super-cleric, judge or imperious power is by definition (their own) rather criminal. But freedom to annoy is the democratic way, or how else could all our totally incompatible creeds and customs coexist, especially in the endless weirdness of our USA. Here to cause no offense is to have never existed at all. The song accompanying the sermon is the excellent Shagg's "Philosophy of the World", amen.

Anyway TV, there's no malice in it, so until somebody passes broad and sweeping annoyance-crime laws, let a rugged tolerance be your shelter.

On Wikipedian conservatism being it's own justification, the counter to that is as ancient as liberalism; just because it's old or customary don't make it good enough to live forever. Rather it's the constant testing of the customary that's exactly what makes any such system viable.

On your writing style, you'd be happily wrong, since I certainly do appreciate it. It's mostly correct, it flows along, it's usually clear, it's competant, and much better than all sorts of halting gobledygook that clogs up early revisions here.

BUT... it's rare for any good thing not to have it's own peculiar weaknesses, and the good that you write, although it far outweighs it's own badness even with a couple of bad free-riders thrown on the balance for good measure... isn't limitless. Concede that, and it'd be possible to inquire as to particulars rather than stonewalling at mere opinion.

On our encyclopedias and trees, you no comprende Senor. If anyone's interested, please check out Robert Darnton's essay "Philosophers Trim the Tree of Knowledge: the Epistomological Strategy of the Encyclopédié", which can be found in his 'The Great Cat Massacre, and other episodes in French Cultural History', 1984 Vintage Books.

PS: if need be it may take another year to reply. Tempus fugit...

AC 07:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to assume your handle. Would you be willing to give it up by requesting its deletion? Aconnelly 18:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, nope! If it's any consolation, I think "Aconnelly" is a perfectly good handle...

AC 2/16/06

List of Marvel Comics endearments has been nominated — unfortunately, I believe — for deletion. As a contributor to that article, you might want to comment, pro or con, at its "Articles for Deletion" discussion. --Tenebrae 05:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up; as a result of which I posted a 'Keep' comment. It should be salvaged, though it's not at present a well written article. Think I'll edit it some now... --AC 08:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		I like you in that way FIRETRuck offENCE cOunt (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AC, I have replied to your "rant" on the anti-copyright talk page. Your rant is a bit harsh given that you don’t know me "not interested in consensus".... I would have responded earlier if I would have seen your post, please feel free to post on my talk page (makes things easier). The article needed some serious clean-up and removal of long tagged non-ref material. Please feel free to add as you see fit (I am not sure what's stopping you). --SasiSasi (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion wasn't without qualifiers "S. ...by not discussing large deletions beforehand, seems not interested in consensus", (italics added). Glad to learn I was mistaken as to your editorial bent. More on Talk:Anti-copyright#criticism_section soon... --AC (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AC, it appears that you added the line "In 2000 a group ..." to the JP1 remote article and then tagged yourself with a ^[who?] tag. The group in question was really 2 people, myself (Rob Crowe) and Dan Nelson (HW Hackr). Here's where the discovery happened: http://www.remotecentral.com/cgi-bin/mboard/rc-remote/thread.cgi?1556

I'd rather not edit the article myself as JP1 is my project, so I'll leave it to you to figure out how you want to incorporate the info. Robman94 (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx! I've accordingly added stuff as per the above reference. --AC (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bill Wolverton has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inks.LWC, I'm puzzled. There are references: the Bill Wolverton stub article had references to two books and a link to a relevant WP article with more references about author BW's famed study, an additional link to which seems redundant. Granted the book references aren't complete, (no pub, year, et al. -- this article is a stub), but both are accurate. There's additional references on the 'talk' page.

It seems like what you probably meant to say was that the references in question didn't meet whichever exacting recent format and media type specifications WP's seemingly ever changing regulations require in a 2011 stub article. If so, please kindly try to describe what is specifically needed.--AC (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Journalista! has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (media) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]