User:Bill/Archived Talk

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of stuff from my talk page. I consider it read-only, so don't bother making any edits, 'cause I'll probably just revert your comments without fanfare, McDorkle.


[edit] Subpage

Hey there Bill. Glad to have you aboard. I know Rogue Leader has already welcomed you, but I also want to drop a note to say hi. It looks like the information below is the beginnings of a page that you plan on creating. If that's the case, then I have a suggestion for you: You should build pages on a user subpage (for example, "User:Bill/Prank Calls"), and then when you're ready, use the move button at the top to transfer your page to its final home. The advantage to using a subpage is that this page can be used for user discussion, such as this message. Incidentally, I learned something about "comprise" today, and I have you to thank for it. — It's dot com 18:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the tip ... I was actually building the real page with its actual title, but naturally I didn't want to actally save it until it was finished. Your way is much better, as I can save periodically while I'm working, and (as you point out) I can benefit from others' feedback. Thanks! — Bill 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a method to automatically list subpages. If, however, you happened to forget what they are, you could look them up in Special:Allpages under the User namespace. This link would take you straight to them. But as far as listing them here in your user space, you'll have to do that manually. By the way, once you create a user page, your subpages will automatically have a backlink to your main page. — It's dot com 19:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category listings

New Question: I moved my page from User:Bill/Obviously Phony Aliases to Obviously Phony Aliases, but the category pages (for Running Gags and Lists) still point to the original page (which is now a redirect). This works, of course, but it looks thoroughly awful in the category lists. I tried to fix this by looking for the right templates to edit, but the categories mechanism doesn't seem to use templates (as best I can tell). So it would seem that either the move function is not really the best way to do this, or there is something about it I don't understand. — Bill 20:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Found the workaround: delete the category tags from the article, save, then put them back in. I guess in the future I'll have to keep such tags as plain text until I move the article to its final destination. — Bill 21:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I know there's a simpler way, but when I tried to test it, I couldn't recreate the situation (even though this has happened to me before). Oh, well. As long as it works now. Rock, rock on! — It's dot com 21:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Every day

Ooh, it really bugs me when people confuse everyday for every day. And then I sometimes see every-day in place of everyday, in news articles! Does no one speak English anymore?! Anyway, high fives. — It's dot com 04:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice to find a kindred spirit! — Bill 04:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think you'll find grammar 'n' usage enthusiasts lacking around here. Take a look at HRWiki:Manual of Style and its accompanying talk page! —AbdiViklas 22:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding your "Search & Destroy" list

I have yet to introduce myself, but I would like to go ahead and say "hi" to you at this point. Anyway, the point of my discussion here was to inquire whether it would be OK with you to add certain grammatical "issues" to your Search & Destroy list. Some examples of such "issues" would be a lot vs. *alot and whether (conjunction) vs. weather (noun). I have more but at this point I think it would be prudent to await a response before continuing further. Thanks! —THE PAPER PREEEOW 18:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've created a new section on my user page for this, and I'll add your requests there. — Bill 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The only thing.

Sweet grammar guide you got there! I was wondering... have you seen the movie Oscar with Silvester Stallone? :) --Stux 19:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't. Thanks for the compliment. Maybe someday the grammar guide can graduate into a sister page for the frequently misspelled words page. — Bill 20:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh! you should see it! It's a very funny movie! And your dangling modifiers reminded me of it, but I will say no more. Just rent it! ;) A grammar guide page! Sounds cool. --Stux 21:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome aboard!

...And, since this doesn't really connect with any of the above discussions, I'll start a new section. I just wanted to commend you for the tremendous number of really grade-A contributions you've made in the space of, what, 24 hours? It's always helpful to get someone who knows a misplaced modifier from a comma splice, and your zeal is matched by accuracy. Long may you edit! —AbdiViklas 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the kind words. In my experience, editors are usually considered a necessary evil at best, so it's nice to be appreciated and not just considered a Word Nazi. It's too bad there isn't some kind of regular-expression search function, to make it easier to find things like comma splices and other structural errors. (Being somewhat lazy, I wanted to start out with easy stuff I could just search for!) Oh well ... I guess I'll just have to read the whole darned wiki.  ;-) — Bill 14:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red

Do we realy need the new templates you made? In my whole experience in this wiki, I can count the number of times I used red text on one finger (Yes, finger). Anyway, if this stays, you could make it on one template. You should also read Help:Template :) Elcool (talk)(contribs) 14:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I've marked them for deletion, as they don't serve a purpose. — Lapper (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, initially I thought they were going to serve a purpose: I anticipated I might be using a lot of red and green as the Grammar Guide grew. But the templates didn't work the way I expected them to, and at the time I didn't realize templates could take parameters. All of which is moot, of course, in lieu of the more important server load issue (which I didn't even think about at the time). If it does turn out I start getting sick of writing span tags all the time for color, I may try again in the future using single (rather than paired) templates with parameters (and applying the subst: trick to save on server load). But by all means, let's delete the ones I created today, and I'm sorry for the trouble. — Bill 18:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, it's no trouble. Experimentation is part of the fun. (It is a bummer when it doesn't work out like you'd hoped, though.) — It's dot com 19:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not gonna rest till you like this word

Wow, someone on the wiki who's older than I am.

I am a copyeditor for a magazine. (Southwestern Musician. Our circulation is about 14,000, and the length varies, but it's about 72 pages each month.) Consequently, my two favorite resources are The Chicago Manual of Style and A Dictonary of Modern American Usage. I am a staunch supporter of the final serial comma in a list of three or more items. But I must take issue with your maligning the word till. It is a very good word. Here is the entry for till in the latter reference, in its entirety:

till; until. Till is, like until, a bona fide preposition and conjunction. Though less formal than until, till is neither colloquial nor substandard. It's especially common in BrE—e.g.:
  • "After the First World War, Hatay, named by Attaturk after the Hittites, fell into the hands of the French, who did not return it till 1939." Daniel Farson, "Rich Rewards in the Land of the Hittites," Independent, 1 Apr. 1995, at 37.
  • It was not till 1994 that the New Yorker unmasked Reage as journalist Dominique Aury—Paulhan's long-standing lover...." Jonathan Romney, "Story of O and S&M," Guardian, 21 Mar. 1997, at T9.
  • "He works from dawn till dusk, six days a week...." Adrian Brewer, "The House of God That Justo Built," Daily Telegraph, 31 Mar. 1997, at 17.

And it still occurs in AmE—e.g.: "In medium skillet, sauté the garlic till golden. Add onion, wait till brown." Jan Norris, "Latin, Asian Fests Add Spice to Weekend," Palm Beach Post, 23 Mar. 1995, at 1FN. But the myth of the word's low standing persists; some writers and editors mistakenly think that till deserves a bracketed sic. See, e.g., Alan Abrahamson, "'Out to Kill,' Says Eccentric S.D. Fugitive," L.A. Times, 30 July 1990, at B1 (adding a sic when quoting someone who used till).
    If a form deserves a sic, it's the incorrect 'til. Worse yet is 'till, which is abominable—e.g.: "A month or two remain 'till [read till] you grab your dancing shoes, plus a crew of pals or that special date." Francine Parnes, "Primping for the Prom," Denver Post, 21 Mar. 1997, at E1.

Additionally, the American Heritage Dictonary has this to say about the two words' usage: "Till is actually the older word, with until having been formed by the addition to it of the prefix un–, meaning 'up to'" ref.

Warmest regards,
It's dot com 20:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Wow. My gut response was to deploy the old "just because it's acceptable doesn't mean it's the best choice" argument, but I'm glad I didn't. I thought about what you were saying, did a little more research to confirm it, and found out that I have been flat wrong. Like, f'rever, man. Wow. It's pretty humbling (and embarrassing). But thank you for taking the time to make your point so clearly, saving me the further embarrassment of fighting a losing battle!
And the plot thickens. Not only did I learn that till is right and 'til is wrong, but I found a very interesting (if overly technical) paper asserting that till and until are not true synonyms, but rather have subtle differences. In a nutshell, one can assert that till tends to focus on the process (the waiting), whereas until tends to emphasize the result (that which ends the waiting). After going through the author's real-world examples, I am convinced. This is why we tend to say, "Peel those potatoes until you have a full bushel, Private!" (emphasis on the result), but "I'll have you peeling potatoes till Hell freezes over, Private!" (emphasis on the process). All of which provides even more evidence that one word is not a clipped form of the other.
Thanks for educating me! I will probably never again be able to type "until" without stopping to think whether I should instead use "till".
Bill 21:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, good. I guess I can rest now (if only for a minute). Are you a current or former military man, hm*h0mey587, or was that just the first thing that popped in your head? I suppose the potatoes examples could have been the author's as opposed to yours, now that I think about it. — It's dot com 21:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
wow, another showing like that and you'll get you own grammar award dot com. Now if I could just get SB's song out of my head, "oh, if it's possesive it's just "its"..." I R F 22:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm not a military man (the KP example was just the first thing that popped into my head). However, I am highly military-compatible (or perhaps I should say military-friendly). Most everything I've done in my entire life pales in comparison to the daily sacrifices made by servicemen and servicewomen, and by their families. — Bill 05:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Same here. — It's dot com
Wow—I can only repeat that you seem to be bringing out the best in us, Bill. What I found most fascinating about all that was that till was the original and until the expansion, whereas I had assumed it was original and then contraction. It makes me want to dig further into the etymology—but not want to enough to overcome my need for sleep. —AbdiViklas 05:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars

Hi Bill,

Can you create a list of recipients entry for your new Barnstar. You can look on this page for examples of how some people have done it. I R F 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. — Bill 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delorted

Hey Bill. Do you want that subpage deleted? 'Cause if you do, just put {{delete|reason}} on it, and I'll take care of it. (By the way, deleted pages can be restored if you ever change your mind.) — It's dot com 21:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes ... thanks. — Bill 23:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (In)consequential things

Bill, if we can't argue about inconsequential things, then what fun is having a wiki? :) (Regarding Marzipan, I do see your points; obviously, it is I who have not explained myself very well. But I don't want to get into all that here.) The item in question has enough support and has been open long enough to be closed without further ado. If, however, you want to propose a rewording on the talk page, you should do so. I personally happen to agree with the wording as it is now, but I'm not married to it. In addition, I wanted to take this opportunity to reiterate what an awesome contributor you are, and to keep encouraging you in your continued endeavors here. Never be shy about bringing up minute distinctions. We need people who will split hairs, and the way you do is top-notch. Keep on tranglin'! — It's dot com 17:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

Regarding your comment on the Main page talk about editing the featured article; if you want an easier way to find the links and edit the featured articles, HRWiki:Featured Article Selection is the way to go. Not only are all the links listed there, but you can even have a say in what's featured. Thanks for the help with the Decemberween article! Thunderbird 14:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dangeresque disambig

Re: [1] ...The reason I added that is that I thought a casual visitor might be confused—the Strong Bad Email that introduces Dangeresque is not actually called "dangeresque", but later there is an email that's called that. The way the disambig link is worded, it sounds like there is only one Dangeresque-related email. Also, we do have at least one example where we differentiate between two general concepts (as opposed to literal page titles). I do see your point as well; I actually hesitated before I made my edit, and I thought I'd leave a note here explaining my line of thought at the time. Cheers! — It's dot com 23:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I buy that. I guess we'll have to keep an eye on the slippery slope and develop a feel for how far is too far, but your logic is sound. — Bill 03:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Ooh, a gray area! In my younger days, I didn't fully appreciate the fact that sometimes things aren't quite black or white, but now (especially after the literally hundreds and hundreds of discussions on what makes a good fun fact) I've come to enjoy the subtleties of the gray area. Within that area I like finding the balance of what is "just right"—somewhere in between that which is too much and too little. (Goldilocks really knew what she was doing when she nicked all of Baby Bear's stuff.) Discovering the balance is at least as much art as science. (And I still can't believe a site about dumb animal characters is making me into a better critical thinker.) — It's dot com 03:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move template

We (or rather, I) have questions on this page about the move template you made. When you get a minute, would you comment there. Thanks. Merry Christmas and Cheery Decemberween! — It's dot com 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

When you move pages, it needs to be done in such a way as to preserve page histories. I am going to fix it. It will all be like you wanted it when I'm done, but it will take just a second, but don't worry: Everything will be fine, nothing will be ruined. — It's dot com 18:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay ... so which part should I have done differently? I can't actually delete the old disambiguation page, so I can't move Mr. Shmallow (character) to Mr. Shmallow, but instead have to transplant the text. What's the method that preserves page histories? — Bill 18:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
You have to have the other page deleted, and then you can move another page into its place. Besides preserving the page history, it also eliminates the need for a notice on the page while you're working. Another helpful hint: There are links you can click on the Tour talk page that will purge the cache and make the tour pages reload with the most updated version. Hope the turkey's good! Merry Christmas! — It's dot com 18:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
So basically I need to wait for a sysop to delete the disambiguation page (which leaves a hole in the site), then come in and do the moves? I don't really like leaving the wiki in a broken state between the time the sysop does the delete and I notice it's been done. Is there another option? — Bill 19:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, sort of. I reverted to a MediaWiki version 1.4 mindset for some reason when I wrote my reply above. I should have said this: In version 1.5, the software allows a sysop to simultaneously delete a page and move another page to the first one's place, so all you need to do is ask that a sysop move the page. — It's dot com

Another question: how do I mark the old Mr. Shmallow (character) redirect page for deletion? I guess because it's a redirect page, my delete tag gets nixed? — Bill 19:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

We don't delete redirects from page titles that have existed for any real length of time. We have no way of easily knowing whether someone has linked to the old title from an external site, and thus don't want to risk breaking the link. — It's dot com

Oh, and if you would be so kind as to delete the Marshmallow's Last Stand disambig page, I still need to perform the same trick there (by moving Marshmallow's Last Stand (toon) to Marshmallow's Last Stand and updating all the links). Thanks. — Bill 19:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the disambig page and moved the toon. You can handle the redirects, or if there's a lot you can ask that GrapeNuts do it. :) — It's dot com 19:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks ... I'm done. — Bill 22:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marzipan MP3s

hey, i read your comment on the main page discussion, and i was wondering if you could send me a link to those mp3s. if you could, that'd be great. DJTehCheat M-E-H! 21:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry... the result of that discussion was the realization that it's not appropriate to post the files. For me to distribute TBC's intellectual property, even for free, would be inappropriate and probably illegal. But there's nothing stopping you from getting a Flash decompiler and making your own MP3s ... just don't distribute them to anyone else. — Bill 04:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Where can i get a flash decompiler? DJTehCheat M-E-H! 18:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Google. — Bill 18:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah!

Hi, Bill, your image rules. I know it pretty simple, but it's best for stuff like this. Only if it was cropped... Anyway, your MLS(t) edits rocks. Keep it flong, Elcool (talk)(contribs) 18:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you mean you wish it had a transparent background, that was my intention... I just forgot that step. It's fixed now. I'll probably slap my forehead the moment I click "Save page", but what does MLS(t) stand for? — Bill 18:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
It's for Marshmallow's Last Stand (toon), the link you worked hard to fix. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 18:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Images

Bill/Archived Talk, according to HRWiki:Personal images, you are allowed to have only two personal images in your userspace. Currently, you have four, which can be found here, here, here, and here. Please consider marking one or more of these images for deletion to comply with policy. Thank you. — Lapper (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoops ... sorry, I didn't realize. I'll fix it. — Bill 18:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, now you have just one. You can have another personal image if you want. (The Bug in Mouth one doesn't count) Elcool (talk)(contribs) 18:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, it's all better now. Thanks for letting me know. Where do I find the policies? I didn't see anything under Help or linked from the image upload page. Thanks. — Bill 18:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
See HRWiki:Personal images. — It's dot com
[Edit conflict] Are you sure you want to lose the glass? You're allowed two images, and that's the number I count (the glass and the yeah). — It's dot com 18:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, if I only get two, then I want to choose them more carefully. Might even want to lose the "yeah". — Bill 19:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's what I'll do. Instead of deleting the glass, I'll mark it abandoned. If you don't want the yeah, then just mark it the same way. Somebody else might find a use for them, and if you change your mind, you can keep them. — It's dot com 19:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Will that make me look like an "image abandoner"? I'm trying to be a good wiki citizen, here! — Bill 19:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, And it turns out I already have two personal images: According to the policy, I have to count the Grunt Work Award. — Bill 19:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Which, by the way, is something of a disincentive against giving awards. Shame. — Bill 19:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... Speaking of which, I think the best user to get this award is Rogue Leader. Check his contribs, he's been tagging images all decemberween and tagget at least 400 of them. He deserves the award. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 19:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree; the award has been conferred. — Bill 20:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sbe template

Hi there Bill. Before you automate the addition of the template, you might want to check out my concerns on Template talk:sbe. -- Tom 17:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[Heh. Double posted'd] You should probably reply to these comments before undertaking the whole project. — It's dot com 17:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The previous/next/watch buttons came in pretty handy for me when I was transcribing this most recent email, to make sure the format was consistent from one to the next. :) In fact, the first edit I made when creating the page was to add the template. — It's dot com 17:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Noice! --Stux 17:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name Change

You don't need to make all those changes. Your old name will redirect to your current one. Keep on tranglin! LePorello / T / C 16:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Still, it doesn't hurt. But if there's a lot you could ask GrapeNuts to do it. — It's dot com 16:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't really like leaving unnecessary redirects hanging around. As for asking GrapeNuts, I think it's best that I have to do this work myself ... makes a person think twice about changing their username too many times. — Bill 20:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
So why'd you do it? ...the name change that is I R F 17:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It was foolish of me to use my (full) real name as my username. That just isn't safe. — Bill 19:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools