Earlier comments are in user talk:Jtdirl (Archive 1) user talk:Jtdirl (Archive 2)
Please leave your comments here:
Ah. Sorry. -- Oliver P. 03:52 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
A secret it took me a bit to figure out: to archive a talk page that is too large for you to edit, use the "Move this page" command. You can move, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) to "Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)/archive57" (or whatever), without having to edit it and without thereby truncating it. If you want to comment on anything from the archive on the NEW talk page, you can just copy and paste it there. (Though I think the whole archiving thing is a bit odd, the whole history is there in the revisions even if you deleted the thing.)
Best of luck on the Emperor naming, if I had a strong opinion I'd voice it, but I don't, and I've found these sorts of disputes dispiriting. It does seem that the race goes to those bold enough to just do what they want instead of discussing it first. It is better to beg forgiveness than ask permission.... and most don't even bother about the forgiveness. -- Someone else 00:58 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
- Egad, if you pay-by-the-minute for access, you're a saint. (hey, actually, these days it might be enough for a beatification<G>). I've found it a little helpful to stay away from anything edited by certain infuriating people. As long as said people contribute, Wikipedia will have errors. But your time is probably better spent writing new stuff or fixing errors where people won't be hell-bent on re-inserting them. -- Someone else 01:25 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
Hello. I've archived Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2000 and put a summary of the most recent discussion at the top (if it's not NPOV enough, feel free to change it!), with a note saying that it should be continued at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. (Actually, that's another page that needs archiving, but the page looks too complicated, and I don't know what people want kept there.) I'm sorry to hear of your annoyance over the issue, and with Susan Mason in general. But I think that giving our naming conventions an airing from time to time might be beneficial, to get them well and truly sorted out (or as near as possible) while we are still in the early stages of the Wikipedia. And as for Susan Mason misrepresenting your position, well, I think a lot of misrepresentation goes on around here... I think we'd probably all get along better if we put it down to misunderstanding and poor wording than maliciousness. Call me weird, but I just can't help liking Susan. :) -- Oliver P. 04:47 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)