Girl Genius
Girl Genius

No longer active. See Special:ListUsers for current administrators.

I archive this talk page whenever this one gets too long or irrelevant. You can find older messages over here.

Welcome back[]

Glad to have you around again. Do you have anything particular on the list of what needs to be done to make the site better for new visitors? Argadi 12:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, lemme think... Offhand, Agatha's article still needs a big polish. Basically, I start at the main page and start reading things as a new user, looking for anything that needs a fix. --mnenyver 22:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Page counter[]

It's fixed! Thank you for letting me know about the one article showing up... That helped us figure out what was going on. We fixed it, so now both the main namespace and Mad: will get counted. Phew. Sorry for the mistake. -- Danny (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Secret Blueprints Move[]

I think you erred in reverting my move of most of the Secret Blueprints main page to the Mad: namespace, because it is not at all clear to me that those pages should even be hosted on Wikia (mainly because the copyright/licence is in doubt). On the other hand, I would hate to lose the resource. As a compromise, I was thinking I would move them all into the Mad: namespace (and make the individual pages subpages of the main page, but that's a minor detail). This was also the immediate motivation for trying to get Klausclank up and running, so if I have convinced you of your error, I ask that you just put things back as they were. Followup-to: Talk:Secret_Blueprints#The next step, bisZarchne 05:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In terms of copyright issues, it does no good to move them to Mad:. We're still hosting them. From a legal pov, no one is going to care about the namespace on Wikia. There's only two solutions to solving that problem: get permission or change the files. I agree that I do like having access to them, but on the other hand, there must be a darn good reason SF doesn't host these pages on their own site.
As for Mad:, I thought we had consensus that it was supposed to be for alternate versions of articles, discussion, and theory. The whole idea started because we wanted canonical stuff separated from fan input. If we want the Secret Blueprints whole and complete, then they should go in the main namespace. Was I incorrect in assuming we'd agreed on what Mad: is for? --mnenyver 17:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Followup-to: Talk:Secret_Blueprints#The next step, bis and Forum:Mad about you.. ⚙Zarchne 21:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


I'm sick of the wikia w, and you have a gear and a willingness to do skin/image-type stuff, how about you upload a suitably-scaled version of that as a working favicon? (ps: Hope pruning some stuff here to your User:Mnenyver/TalkArchive is okay.) — Zarchne 02:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking that earlier -- sure thing. The gear is just a font character, blown up and hand colored. I'm also going to try a slightly different version of the logo. --mnenyver 04:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
New favicon uploaded. What do you think? (And my husband just now pointed out I should have used a trilobite.) --mnenyver 03:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It's better, much better than the "w", but it needs some internal shadow, I think. Trilobite would also be cool. — Zarchne 21:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. (Unless someone else gets to it first.) --mnenyver 21:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit to add -- I'd prefer if I was the only one to edit things under my own user namespace, actually. I know how I want things to be organized, blah dee derpa blah derpa dee. --mnenyver 15:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to remember to refrain in the future; I would, however, point out that the User_talk space is technically and also for practical purposes excluded from an absolute proscription of that kind. — Zarchne 21:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Vell yah, dot goze vitout sayingk. But hiff hyu go an' moof schtuff around, den I gots to go find vere you put it und decide if dots vere I vant it und dot makes me hafta tink und I gots to save de brain cells I gots. --mnenyver 21:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Eef hyu vants to swim mit de sharks hyu gots to be a chum. No, vait. — Zarchne 22:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam page, needs deleting[]

Want to do your adminnish thing on this? Kiddies with public tattoo ink

Incidentally, I'd be more than happy to get admin status so that I can take care of this kind of stuff. I certainly do it on enough other wikis... -- that old bearded guy 23:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I set that kind of thing or does someone with bureaucrat privs need to do it? --mnenyver 02:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Varies from wiki to wiki. If you can't (there would be a link to it from "Special pages"), let me know and I'll ask Zarch. -- that old bearded guy 02:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe I have access to that, no, otherwise I'd set up you and a few others. --mnenyver 02:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty much the bureaucrat's whole job (distinct from admin) AIUI. I thought about saying "let's have a discussion" but I guess there's no good reason not to. — Zarchne 22:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Specifically looking for your input on whether just adding "tags" to Chronology field would cover tagging need or if that should be called "misc" to allow future use of name or would even that get used? — Zarchne 22:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A tagging system seems redundant with the system you're using. --mnenyver 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
... okay, I guess that answers the questions as follows: you think system User:Argadi and I are developing as Chronology will cover the needs for tagging; therefore it doesn't matter where the field is called "misc" or "tags", so Argadi's suggestion "tags" is okay... But I'm still wondering, do you think even that is necessary? — Zarchne 02:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to reply to that forum post earlier, started multi-tasking and completely forgot. I meant that, to me, it makes sense that it should be either/or. Either use robust tags or separate things into categories (e.g. names of characters, locations, etc.) Since you want to include popular quotes and such, the latter makes more sense. I'll go post on the forum as well. --mnenyver 04:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Thanks. Actually, there is durn little for an admin to do here. I'm impressed, not so much that the readers are so restrained and honorable (I'd expect that), but that the Wikia system is so successful in blocking the spambots. If only that were the case on the other wikis where I'm an admin ... -- that old bearded guy 04:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome[]

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for the welcome (which was over a week ago...I'm busy...). I also wanted to thank you for the heads up you gave me on the inappropriate placement of theories. I promise to move them soon. If you could give me a quick summary of what goes where (as far as I know, there's normal pages, a Mad namespace, and some forums), I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Laplacetransformer 04:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. The normal pages contain facts (as much as we can call them facts, anyway), very conservative guesses, and information from outside the comic that is 99.9% likely to be relevant to the comic (eg. the Anvil Chorus being the inspiration for the Hammerhead Chorus seems to be a pretty reasonable assumption). All other speculation goes on the Mad page. For example, we "know" that Klaus's family lands were in Transylvania, but since it's something that's never stated in the comic, it goes on the Mad page.
Oh, and hi. :D
--mnenyver 16:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


4&l, & m#%m@c@#@cq* xc4li6.

c xq#1d*'@ vi@ & wih 1i@@i6m, @lq#vl, d#i @q 1&xu qw c*wq68&@cq*: hlcxl dcvc@m dq "g" &*d "t" 6i46imi*@? &*d hl^ dcd ^q# mhc@xl @li xc4li6 wq6 @li 1&m@ 4&6&v6&4l?

&*d & w&c6 *#8%i6 qw 8cmm4i11c*vm.

@6^ @lcm q*i (c@'m m@c11 & m#%m@c@#@cq* xc4li6):




Ordinary 22:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

o.O Not sure what you used here and I don't really feel like doing it by hand. :) A little help? --mnenyver 22:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I replaced spaces and common punctuation (comma, period), but left other punctuation unchanged. So which cipher symbol do you think is period? space? E? Another hint: compare the number of doubled symbols here with the number in your cipher. Ordinary 09:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


I don't want to be unpleasant (maybe this is a grieving process for me), but occasionally I come across places where you wrote that the Mad: namespace (now /Mad) was/is for "alternate" versions of articles. When I see that, I think, "that's not what she means, what she really means is..." something... "companion", "counterpart", "alternative", perhaps, but just "alternate" first makes me think: "serving the exact same purpose, only in a different style", "surrogate", "replacement", which no-one has actually expressed interest in (except myself, to save page loads). [GEAR]Zarchne 16:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right -- alternate is the wrong word there. Counterpart would probably be better. --mnenyver 04:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
This has been debated elsewhere, and for the moment the /Mad companion to an article is considered useful, while a Mad: alternate version is considered redundant. I have a suitable template, Has-Mad-Ns, I can provide (it won't make Mad:Has-Mad-Ns a wanted page; by using <onlyinclude> on the live part, and making an extra copy in <noinclude> I can achieve that - also, it uses PAGENAME instead of FULLPAGENAME to avoid pages with two colons) should a consensus on use of the Mad: namespace be reached. (Or I can change the template so that it doesn't say what the Mad: page is for, in such a way that makes it obvious it is not for immediate use.) --Quadibloc 21:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The only concern I have is resolving what Mad: is for. I'd hate for all this work to be done on it and then have that reverted because there was still confusion. I think Zarchne is still off for the holidays, and I haven't heard from Greybeard in a while, so we're not likely to get progress on that until after Christmas. --mnenyver 21:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


Y'know, I would have sworn I'd fixed that. Corgi 14:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

hehe :)
Thank you for the fanfic article, by the way. --mnenyver 14:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Catherdral[]

I kindov knew dot but could not find anozzer way dot prezervd the context. Obvioz way was to chust delete room. Den sumvun voud haf replazed hit. Do hyu haf goot sollution? Altgorl 22:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I was about to answer, but I see Corgi got you. :) --m 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

How to reload a page[]

When you want a page to reload to evaluate template changes, you can just add ?action=purge to the end of the URL. This asks to clear out the cache for the page and start over. Argadi 14:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Does it? Oh, nice. Thanks! --m 15:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

May Events[]

Hi Mnenyver, you edited my version of events. So I need to talk about what I've done.

What I have aimed for is to update the events at the end of the week. To use a tone that refers to what happens in the comic but sometimes glancingly. E.g. the remark about Merlot having warmed completely to the task of taking care of Bettle's notes and labs.

I have also found that focusing on the relationship between Gil and Agatha and letting other details go keeps the focus on what IMO the story is all about. For these last action sequences, I tried to give a feel for the rapid events by doing a lot of short sentences. Keeping the pace brisk.

A lot of that punch seems to have gone out with your revisions. What are you trying to accomplish? How do we work w/o working at cross purposes? Rej Maddog 17:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rej. Sorry I had to take a hacksaw to the last couple of paragraphs. (And I did hate to remove some of it - I love when Gil is championed.) Most of it was removed because it was more personal perspective rather than straightforward storytelling. (A little bit of color commentary is fine.) Some of it was removed for space. The style was fine -- I liked your punchier language. Current events was intended to keep the front page fresh and timely, as well as to provide quick links to relevant articles. The idea is to help new readers become acclimated and for old readers to be able to look up the history at a glance. (Though I'm honestly not sure how useful the article is. I wonder how other wikis are using that file?)
As far as how often it needs to be updated -- it's not meant to be a blow-by-blow of the entire comic; just a very basic summary. I think we should aim for no more than a short paragraph or two per month. I think it's okay if we go back and edit previous entries too, either expanding because we found out something was more important than we thought it was or trimming because it wasn't such a big deal.
Does this clear things up? If we want to talk about changing how the article is used or any other big issues with it, we should probably take it to the talk page so other editors can chime in.
--m 18:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's still kind of long, but I backed things up to the actual beginning of May (how'd that get left out?), tried to keep some of Rej's interesting bits and trimmed it down as much as I could. That last paragraph is still a little too blow-by-blow, but I figured maybe somebody else could try being terse. -- Corgi 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Right, more like that. A little blow-by-blow may be needed once in a while. We can always go back and edit. --m 19:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mnenyver, my intention was to edit it down at the end of the month if need be. Your involvement also serves as a wake up call.

This month was full of important action, more or less just now resolved. Current stuff is closer than it will appear in the rear view mirror. Updating weekly lets me get a little carried away with describing those close up happenings. The things that were happening became cliff hangers which is what I kept tagging the weekly stuff with the cliff hanger endings. I am going to post a edited down version of my take on things and adjust it on Friday to take in the next page and the end of the month. See if that is acceptable.

Thanks Corgi for your support. Rej Maddog 22:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Toughpig's assist and autosuggest issue[]

I see that his commas have got the Othar's Twitter sorting the way we want, but the subcategories are still totally screwed up/non-existent. I left a message for Catherine, the Wikia person who answered you about the advertising, but I think I might need to send a support e-mail. Also, have you noticed a problem with autocomplete/autosuggest when you're adding existing pagenames or the like? I'm not getting it right now. -- Corgi 20:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on his last reply, he said it was an issue with defaultsort vs. sort within the Category link. Unless they change how defaultsort works, I think we have to do that manually for now. And yes, autocomplete works inconsistently for me. I usually search. --m 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
But why will it see words as character strings and not numbers? [stomps off to Support] -- Corgi 20:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, guys! I think I've got the Twitter category working the way that you want. Basically, it's a quirk of using template + defaultsort to create category tags. If you want things to sort using a space, you need to actually use the category tag with a sort tag in it. I didn't know that was the case until now; I thought I knew everything there was to know about defaultsorts. :)
So what's the problem with the subcategories? I stopped by because Catherine asked me to -- she saw your message, and asked me to stop by, because I use defaultsorts a lot and would probably figure it out.
Also -- autocomplete has been broken for a couple days, which is annoying. The engineers know what caused the problem, and they're fixing it. Sorry about that! Anyway, let me know if there's anything else you need. -- Danny (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
With the change, it all appears to display correctly to me. Maybe Corgi's seeing something else. (Can I just say - you guys rock?) --m 20:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Danny - I got confused between your sig and your username. D'oh. My bad - I didn't catch up the forum updates first, I was looking at Recent Changes and went from there. The category IS sorting by date, yes - that worked fine. I was, for some reason even I can't comprehend, expecting it to do something else that defaultsort is not meant to do, and... :headdesk:. is horribly embarrassed
So now that I have comprehended the error of my ways... is there a way to make it do subheaders/subcategories by whole year, not just '2'? Or would that have to be actual categories themselves? [goes off to kick self and prepare temple tray with wakasashi].
Thanks for the update about the autocomplete too. -- Corgi 20:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, no problem at all. :) I understand what you want to do with the categories -- have it say "2007", "2008", etc. I've wanted to do that too, and unfortunately, I don't know how to do it. I would say that it's not possible in MediaWiki, but I've been surprised before -- there might be some super-complicated css trick that would let you do it. But I haven't seen it on any wikis up until now. So for now, all I can do is line 'em up with no heading. -- Danny (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)



I am a hopelessly stuck Lostpedian who watches the admins' talk pages. I am also the senior sysop at If you don't get an answer you like about using templates from Lostpedia, stop on by and copy the formats from us.'s owner believes in open source code.

After I saw your note to Kevin at Lostpedia, I read the 2002 pages of Girl Genius. Interesting; a long way to go.

Maybe I'll get around to building a sig in a few days.

Jim (--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

btw, that's NOT the Fringe wiki on wikia. --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe sooner...--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello there! And thank you, especially for going out of your way to post a message here. If it's okay (and you have it set in your preferences) I'll just email you about this.
And yes, Girl Genius does have a big archive, but it goes fast. And even if I am a bit biased, I think it's perfect for summer reading while you're waiting for the new tv seasons. :D (I can't believe how long it'll be 'till more Lost. Oof.)
--m 01:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mnen, did you remember I made that Mad cleanup template for you? Looks like you're winding up to need it. ^_^ -- Corgi 00:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You did? What where who? (I remember being asked which was which...) --m 00:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thank you! I did see that, now that you pointed it out. --m 00:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you're the one who gave us the theory support template as part of your work on Gilgamesh Wulfenbach's Mad page. I've gone off on a wild spree using it to indicate support for theories on other Mad pages. Perhaps I was too early, as the format of that first page that you're experimenting on may not be finalized yet. --Quadibloc 02:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's "good enough" at the moment. The layout of the entire page still seems slightly messy, but I'm not going to worry about it now. Thank you for helping with the mad pages! Don't forget to add Template:Theory policy at the top too. m (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

May Events and reverted edits[]

Hi m, I am very confused at this point. I reread what you wrote above. And I am still unclear of what we are talking about exactly.

You reverted things back to Corgi's version. Which was longer than what I proposed. On rereading it, it is a passable summary.

You said: Most of it was removed because it was more personal perspective rather than straightforward storytelling. (A little bit of color commentary is fine.)

I think you need to explain the difference a little better. I am a storyteller enough to know that the narrator is part of the telling. So as I wrote I let the narrator perspective seep in. This seems objectionable to you and I haven't a clue how to solve both of our issues. The "Maddog" voice is by the nature of who it is modeled after a little over the top. On the other hand it aims not to be boring.

I am not upset by the current turn of events. The writing was in the way of an experiment. I am saddened that it hasn't worked out positively (yet). But there would be no way to find out if it hadn't been tried.

Meta-points. What is the right purpose for the summary. What would be useful? It seems that making it a dull retelling of the comic would not serve anyone. The comic itself is available and anyone could catch up with the last month in an evening. Also the comic has a natural pace, with cliff hangers on the weekends and resolutions as the month terminates. Just observing.

So what purpose in your opinion should the monthly summary serve in the month that the comic is unfolding? What purpose should it serve the following month? What purpose when it is just part of the archive? Those define three edit/revision points. This is a wiki and no reason that we can't have different versions of the summary available at different times.

Meta-point two. What is the proper way to resolve this? Where is the proper forum to discuss this with you, me, Corgi and who ever else needs to put their oar in. The wikia to me is a lot like the castle. The rooms and paths keep changing.

-Rej Maddog 06:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To address just a small portion of this - my revision was a little longer because it actually started at the beginning of the month. -- Corgi 07:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Corgi, If you look here you will see your summary also includes a week of what happened in April. This is not critical. I had been trying to keep each month strictly to the actions happening in that month. Then use the only-include brackets to keep the previous month as well as the developing month up in the current events box. --Rej

Hello again. I'm sorry for the conflict, but at least we're talking about it. I also really appreciate how nice you're being about all of this. I know I get weird about having my edits removed. As far as what was wrong, specifically:
  • You removed a lot of useful information and links to relevant articles. You can compare edits here. The sentences that remained were so general that it would be very hard for a new reader to know what was going on.
  • There were also a few problems with additions. "shiny (?) new (?) Heterodyne (?) mobile gundam unit" -- This is not a great sentence. It's also not a "shiny new" unit. (I doubt anything found in the castle is shiny and new at this point.)
  • Silas gattles the resuscitated tiger-dog back to suscitation. Gattles? Suscitation?
Sigh. The Maddog dictionary tolerates jabberwocky. --Rej
  • Gil showing just why you don't want to anger a Wulfenbach, flips the gundamed Silas. Giving Agatha just enough time to retrieve her castle redecorator. This should be once sentence, with edits for grammar and punctuation. Also, phrases like "castle redecorator" lack meaning for new readers. It's better to just say "death ray".
Agreed. --Rej
  • To reiterate: "Current events was intended to keep the front page fresh and timely, as well as to provide quick links to relevant articles. The idea is to help new readers become acclimated and for old readers to be able to look up the history at a glance."
While I'm not "in charge" of the wiki and this is a group project, I do think part of my job is to act as a publishing editor, which is why I made this an issue. However, I also don't want to discourage anyone's participation, especially when someone is so sincere about making contributions to a comic they love. It's a careful balancing act. I hope this clears things up.
Edit to add -- you could do worse than to look to Corgi for a really good editor of English. She's had a lot of experience and she's not afraid to tell you when something is bad. I speak from experience. >.< --m 15:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
--m 15:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Mnenyver, thank you for your response. I was trying to understand what your main concerns and your explanation helped.
I rely on Corgi for her skills. Her being there means I don't have to strive to emulate her. Just to defer to her better judgment.
--Rej Maddog 21:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


My intention in updating the latest debate was to:

  1. Freshen the topic
  2. Have a discussion on things Zola in the new Forum

I left links both to the forum and Zola's own page. Maybe we need a link to search for the other Zola forum topics?

I am a little too close too the subject to see why that invitation wasn't clear. So if you think you can clarify it please give it a shot. I just ask that you don't spoil the fun. I assume our readers are sparky people and can figure a lot out on their own. So I believe its better not to spell things out for them in too much detail. If they get things slightly wrong that may lead to and interesting experiment too. Cheers --Rej Maddog 23:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

When I went back to the "Current debate" I found you had already altered it. I have now altered it some more. Firstly the word "insists" rankled. Speculation is by no means insistence. The other thrust of the change was to focus the reader on getting to the forum. To make it obvious to take that link to continue the discussion. Does this work for you?

It seems we are to be conflict partners for a while. I'm game to learn what you know and what you need from me to reduce the dissonance between our views. I expect you are willing to do the same. Cheers --Rej¿¤¤? 01:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  1. Informal wiki etiquette is that if a change you made was reverted or altered, you should then move to discuss. Simply getting into edit wars does no one any good.
Alright. Noted for the future. -- Rej
  1. The main page should be a neutral space and is not a place to promote one's personal theories. There are plenty of other places on the wiki for that.
Okay. Then? What is the current debate supposed to lead readers to do??? --Rej
The current debate box normally contains a neutral comment or question identifying what is being debated, so it is to lead readers to where the various debates and discussions are. --Quadibloc 00:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
m (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've reviewed the edit history. It went from Rej's one liner to this revision of Mnen's; then Rej made this revision, which on comparison, seems to be less of an actual revision as adding an excess of whitespace and change 'insists' to 'speculate'. Personally, I feel like they're insisting somewhat frantically, but that's not important here. Either word serves.
Rej also added/retained some redundant links and has an inappropriate question mark at the end. However, the text is not really changed from Mnen's draft. There's one other topic, Forum:Zola "Heterodyne"/Mad, which seems to have died a natural death, so including it is a coin flip.
I seem to be missing the actual point of dispute.
I'm going to tidy this up to my taste and see how you both like it, OK? And then we can go from there. -- Corgi 02:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, things like this should be resolved by a third editor. Thank you for looking into it. m (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Corgi, thanks for chiming in. I won't change things again. What you did is close enough. We differ on the value of white space. For me it makes things more readable. Also separates idea's that don't belong in the same paragraph. The duplicate link was because I wanted to direct the reader to a particular place to discuss. Directing them to all the forums will eventually confuse. Still if it gets them interacting with the wiki that will be okay. Now I need to go back to my cave and figure out how my speculation managed to sound like frantic insistence. --Rej¿¤¤? 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Not your speculation, everybody's speculation. If you look at the other groups, there've been FAR too many discussions about how Zola could be a Heterodyne (because apparently, when a Mongfish marries a Heterodyne her genetic structure changes) despite her very strong resemblance to somebody else. It's been driving me crazy about as much as this apparent need of the fandom to Jaegerise both of the beaux.
As to the whitespace, it works well when there's the acreage for it, like in an article or a Talk page. This is a section that's supposed to be terse and compact, which is why it came out. There's only so much room on the front page to grab peoples' interests, and part of it is taken up by the advert. Can't use more of that limited space to separate stuff that's supposed to be on the same topic anyway, kapeesh? Style point, not content point. -- Corgi 20:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure who else Zola resembles, although I suppose I could pick Agatha's secretary or Violetta, both of which look slightly more like her than Lucrezia. As I noted in my comment, I personally am not partial to the theory. As for both of the beaux becoming Jagerized; well, that's possible, what with Gil being in danger of side effects, and Tarvek turning green. Obviously, Gil, at least, doesn't stay that way, and if Tarvek did, then the cover design for the volume would have been a lie.
I think the Foglios are honest, and, in any event, the Castle kitchen, if it is suitable to the preparation of a souffle, should also be genuinely capable of producing real cake. For the delectation of those who are... --Quadibloc 00:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi m, I think I may have had a good idea up till the time I took the Zola speculation out of the madlab and into the forum topic. It would probably been easier to get others to comment w/o the provocative theory staring them in the face. My hope was to cause merriment and reaction. Apparently this experiment did not work out exactly as expected. Ah well, that's science. And the only way this mad scientist knows how to learn.

I still don't understand what you are doing with the front page though your explanations are helping. The front page is to orient the readers to the wiki. Direct them to the discussions, Daily comic, forums points of interest. What else? --Rej¿¤¤? 19:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Forum Question Page[]

I was going to post a note in the Talk asking someone to double check the changes I had made (and I do hope that i didn't irritate anyone by categorizing the questions). Thanks for doing that. I'm not sure why I voted twice, but my parents were walking in the door for a day out when I finished so i didn't have a chance to request. So Thanks -- Axi 20:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I know how stuff can get lost when a bunch of text is moved around. Thank you for reorganizing the page, by the way. (And Corgi for keeping up with answers to questions.) m (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for freshening the latest debate.[]

Good Job. The picture is a nice touch. --Rej¿¤¤? 06:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! m (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It worked. It worked. It worked.[]

m Thanks very much for appreciation of the Heterodyne trilogy . Means a lot to me to know it amused you. --Rej¿¤¤? 19:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Transdimensional Harmics Mad[]

I approve the correction. Sorry for being a pain about it, but we do strive to be accurate :) -- Axi 20:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

editing people's forum postings[]

Is there a "look there, you can read it for yourself" rule against editing other people's forum postings, or is this something that I am assuming is so because the forum template asks people to sign their comments, and if someone is editing someone else's comments, that doesn't happen?

I was looking at the list of recent edits and saw that Rej, Axi, and Corgi had edited Forum:Hugo!. I saw Axi's and Corgi's edits, but not Rej's. Rej had edited your comment to turn "HUGO!" into a link to the GG Hugo Acceptance Strip. In the grand scheme of things, this is not amazingly damaging editing, but still, it's putting words into someone else's mouth.

I'd like to say something, but if I think someone is breaking The Rules, it helps a lot if I can point to The Rule in question. Otherwise, it's just me being Aunt Brassi Grumpypants. -- Brassica 12:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. Thank you for pointing it out - and no, you're not wrong for doing that. I didn't reply yet because I was figuring out how to respond to Rej. :/ m (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, m, Hi Brassica. The two top rules I know about are have fun and help others have fun. I looked at what was there. Thought how to add the link. Realized it might or might not be okay to do what I did. And nothing else really needed to be said by me other than the link. I put it in, realizing that this is a wiki and others would sort out any mistakes later. What you did with it was fine.
I will be more sensitive about editing anything m or Brassica writes in the future. I am sorry about any unhappiness my actions might have caused. --Rej¿¤¤? 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not a terrible infraction, but it is a bad habit to get into and should be avoided except in certain cases. m (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)