User talk:Ike9898/Archive 1

I had some way old talk (prior to Mar 04) that I deleted at one point, and so is not in this archive. Of course if you're wierd and you want to see it for some reason, just search the page history ike9898 03:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ike. I would like to inform you that I have been doing some major editing to the nutrition article. I saw you just edited the introduction, which was good. I decided to remove most of it, however. I think it is best short. I have basically overhauled the whole nutrition article, as it was woefully lacking. How do people discuss editions here, I don't see much activity in the discussion pages? Simon

Ike! Owner of Ike! Where are you?? Look! I was just upset about your comments on the quality of my contributions (you have to admit you werent nice)! Look at all the nice things people are doing around here! I, just the example i know best, am currently working on the Principality of Antioch, jokes free. Dont be upset! This is a great project and neither me or Denni are trying to sabotage it! Say something! This blanking worries me. Muriel 19:31, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Ike, you dont need to apologise because i know that your bad temper against jokes is just because you love Wikipedia :) I also want to apologize for some harshness in my message to you earlier. But lets forget about this and work together to make this encyclopedia a better encyclopedia. See you around! Muriel 20:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Muriel on this one. Given the thousands of joke-free words I've written over more than 40 articles (created or significantly contributed to), I have no doubt of my contribution to Wiki. I also have no doubt of the value of Wiki itself. I would not be spending hours a day here if I saw it as a waste of time or energy. That being said, no one is paying me to be here, and if I don't find the experience rewarding/fulfilling, I won't stick around. I suspect I'd have lots of company in putting that sentiment to a vote. I see you've been around for a while, and have contributed many articles of substance. I urge you to remain -- there is room in this town for the both of us. Denni 20:10, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)

Thanks, Ike. Just got your note, and appreciate your willingness to compromise. I think there's a place for joke articles here; I guess the question is where they ought to be. Would you be comfortable with a page set aside for people to post jokes/parodies/weird lists? I think it'd be a fun place to visit, and if it had its own location (and a link on the main page), it could coexist happily with the more serious task of compiling information. Denni 20:16, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)


Vitamin T - Hi Ike - were you going to list Vitamin T on VFD? Thanks! Mark Richards 20:39, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cool - what do you think? T at least has some sites that look halfway serious? I am fooled by an internet hoax??! Mark Richards 20:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oops! :-) Sorry, ike, thought it had been an anonymous user's contribution. Meant no offense. I skimmed it and made a flippant comment because I was (as usual when posting at VFD) in a grumpy mood. My apologies! Have a good day, Jwrosenzweig 21:00, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Actually, Woodrow is just a pseudonym I use sometimes, but it's a clue to my real name if you think hard. さようなら, - Woodrow 02:14, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Good edit on Ghostface costume, I should have done that one myself. Dunno how I missed it in fact! Andrewa 08:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification to the Fermentation article, its a topic I enjoy, but I'm no specialist in the biology. (I'm more of a math/physics/psychology generalist who likes making sourdough/cider/pickles/kimchi in spare time). The Maillard reaction and Caramelization stuff I put up could probably use a good review too...

Its a neat coincidence that I happened to cite your advisor. I picked up the reference from the FAO articles, which are great reading (they inspired me to replace the old information that was from the 1811 household cyclopedia that was hilariously outdated.) --Johnkarp 13:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Hello, Ike. If you add a few more things to that Kim Deitch database (a good project--Deitch is miserably underappreciated), I might be able to contribute some data. I'm reluctant to do so now because I don't really understand your format.

By the way, have you read "The Search for Smilin' Ed," serialized in Zero-Zero? I'm still waiting for one issue to arrive to complete the thing, but the first half of it is absolutely great... it's premature to say more before I read the whole, but based on my partial reading I can confidently commend this to your attention. If you haven't seen it, it runs in issues 21-27, excepting #23 (All available from Fantagraphics) ; I think it is the longest piece he's ever done.--BTfromLA 22:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Yes, I've read and enjoyed "Stuff of Dreams," and I await #3 (who knows when). At your suggestion, I've just created a short East Village Other entry (and I find that there's really nothing about the Underground Newspapers in the US--a larger hole to fill). I included a bit about Gothic Blimp Works on the same page--I'm not sure whether I did the "redirect" for the GBW properly: please take a look.--BTfromLA 02:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I've added my vote to the American comic book entry, though I must confess to having been put off by some of the collaborators who have shown up in comics-related topics thusfar (see the comics talk page for an absurd dispute in which I participated); I suppose the subject is a magnet for immature and shortsighted, though passionate, contributors. By the way, I did read Deitch's "Smilin' Ed" piece in total, and I think it is a candidate for the best thing he's ever done. A real shame that it remains so obscure. (I was hoping that the overall structiure of the piece was going to be a bit stronger than it was, though... this strikes me as Deitch's weakness--the long pieces seem to sort of free-associate from scene to scene, and they are wonderful, but in the end one doesn't get a sense of each of the parts working to support a larger design the way you do in, say, Maus.)--BTfromLA 18:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FYI, all those Zero Zero issues are still available via Fantagraphics (if you happen to have a very richly stocked comic store nearby, you might find them there--certainly they could order it for you, or you can just order from Fanta directly). I suspect you have allthe in-print deitch books at this point, but if you go to the online Fanta store, check their "bargains" section--alas, most of the deitch catalog is there. Boulevard of Broken Dreams is remaindered now, too--I just bought a few copies to give away, at $1.99 plus postage. Yes, Maus is unique among Spiegelman's works--I wasn't really trying to draw a comparison between Spieg and Deitch, but between Deitch's meandering story structure and an example of a more rigorous structure--I could have used "Lolita" or "Sunset Boulevard"-- I'm sure you get my meaning. Despite my niggling, Smilin' Ed, I must say, is one of the most purely enjoyable comics I've ever read--I repeatedly laughed outloud while reading it, and it at least touches upon most of the characters in the great Deitch universe. Your "say it once, then get out " wikipedia policy makes a great deal of sense. I felt foolish for engaging in a long back-and-forth with a guy who insisted that "pamphlet-format", when used to describe the traditional comic book format, was an odious propaganda term.--BTfromLA 20:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Hi! I've gotten the impression that you're interested in articles related to comics and sequential art. I've just created a project called WikiProject on Comics in order to establish consensus on the organization and content of such articles, and I hope you'll join in. See the main project page and please leave comments on the Talk page. Thanks! -leigh (φθόγγος) 22:31, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)