User talk:Avt tor/Archive 1

; Archives
	2006 - Mar 2007; May 2007 - December 2008; Jan 2009 - May 2010; Talk: June 2010 - current; ; ;

February 2006

Welcome! (4 Feb 2006)

Hello, Avt tor/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --DarkEvil 02:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada (4 Feb 2006)

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 02:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2006

Second-person and point of view (7 Oct 2006)

Thank you for contributing to the different articles on second-person narration. It is very much needed with some qualified help on this issue! I see that you have added an eample of "Jonathan Garg's New Moon" to the point of view article. Who is this Jonathan Garg? I have never heard about him and I have not been able to find anything on him, and the link that you have added seems to lead to a website that does not quote its sources whatsoever!? Thanks again! Jeppebarnwell 10:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Actually, all I did was try to clean up the confusion between Point of view (literature) and Narrator. A lot of POV material was in the Narrator article, so I just cut and paste and tried to make that somewhat coherent. I didn't evalutate the content as such. I'm not the source of the reference to Jonathan Garg. Part of my purpose was to add clarity so that it would be easier to research some of the details. When I discovered the subordinate articles, it seemed to me that a lot of the detailed material could go into the subordinate pages, so there's still work to be done. But when I saw the debate about merging going back months, untangling the pages looked like a soluble first step. Avt tor 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 2006

Lieberman (29 Nov 2006)

Agree with your edits to the lead, but I think it would be better to correct problems (mentioning Jewish in the opening line, dropping phrase "anti-Palestinian") without characterizing them in the summary line as anti-Semitic.

It is important to Lieberman's bio that he is Jewish, more important than noting Dodd's religion, whatever it may be. I think we can agree though, that it does not belong up top, without resorting to charges of anti-Semitism. Likewise, he is one of the most anti-Palestinian legislators in Washington. But we agree that the use of that phrase (instead of pro-Israel) is inflammatory. Toning down rhetoric is a good thing. It would be just as good to talk about toning down rhetoric instead of characterizing factually accurate but inappropriately placed comments as anti-Semitic.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Jd2718 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singling out public figures for being Jewish, in a way that isn't applied to other public figures, is a method used by anti-Semitic groups to isolate and marginalize Jewish personalities. It's not harmless or neutral, regardless of how factual it is. There is a way to put relevant background in context. Someone keeps injecting this material back in, and their agenda should be exposed. Avt tor 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two problems here. We don't know the editor. And as much as you dislike the edits or I think they are inappropriate, we do not know the editor's motivation. By labeling them anti-Semitic you may be in violation of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. And while the violation may be minor, it is worth reading the policy.

Second, there is a need for editors to revert anti-Semitic editing on Wikipedia. But I am talking about the real thing (try Holocaust or Jew for lots of examples. I would not count these edits in the same category. Jd2718 01:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll take your word about those other articles. I don't think I can edit my earlier reason, but I won't phrase the objection that way in the future. Avt tor 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 2006

Fandom guideline (12 Dec 2006)

Your heart is in the right place, but I hope you're ready for a serious battle. I went through a tremendous amount of conflict when I wrote the notability guideline for royalty, and that's nothing compared with the number of editors that will show up to tear this one apart. Fans of Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, Dragon Ball Z, World of Warcraft, Pokemon, and pretty much every other pop culture genre are going to be all over this.

I have two suggestions to make this easier. First, try to make everyone happy (within reason) even if it means ruining the guideline. If it can't hold together after massive changes, it wasn't meant to be. Second, answer questions and requests for a few weeks, just to get the ball rolling, then bow out. Just take it off your watch list and let the changes go on without you. Check back once in a while to see how things are shaping up, but don't drive yourself crazy trying to defend it for months on end. If it's been turned into a good guideline, other people will step up to defend it for you. If not, then the people have spoken.

It would take a serious miracle to get this one to fly, but if you can keep your sanity then at least it will make for some interesting discussion and a good learning experience. Good luck! Kafziel ^Talk 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I need a guideline to help me in editing other pages. I'm not interested in imposing my will on the community, I'm asking for opinions as to where the lines should be drawn. There are pages for people whose major accomplishment seems to be posting to other people's blogs or having some cute schtick at cons. If the bar is lowered that much, it would call for hundreds or thousands of pages to be created, which IMO would overstate the importance of fandom, and in practice would mean that people who have friends who edit Wikipedia would be overstated in importance relative to others of greater note. I hope you're right that many people will have opinions; that should help make this useful to people. It's not the media stuff that needs to be fixed, as the existing guidelines work fairly well for content related to TV shows. Avt tor 17:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong - it looks like you're doing well so far. But things are just getting warmed up. I just wanted to give you a couple of pointers, as one of the most recent editors to have gone through the process. Some won't like it the way it is, some won't like the fact that it exists at all, and some will say it's already covered by a different guideline and should be deleted. Don't lose sight of WP:OWN and you should do fine. Kafziel ^Talk 17:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, I barely own things that actually are published commercially under my own name. :) The purpose of this, from my perspective, is to ask the community where we should be drawing the line. I proposed this because the existing guidelines don't clearly cover the situations I'm seeing, or rather, the existing guidelines seem to lead toward deletion and I want consensus in the grey areas before doing anything like that. In most cases I am at least slightly personally acquainted with the people in question and I wish to be extra careful. Avt tor 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Canada (21 Dec 2006)

No problem, glad to do it. I see a few more things there that need attention; I'll get back to it when I can. Great country you got up there. Hope I can visit someday. Textorus 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2007

Science fiction and science fiction fandom (8 Jan 2007)

You obviously have some expertise in these areas. I haven't broached the articles to do with fandom, but I wanted to let you know that I can see you know what you're talking about. I'm not just flattering you on this - it's an assessment I've made. The hard part with the science fiction article is finding sources that will satisfy people; almost anything on that article is likely to be contested, no matter how uncontroversial it may seem to the person making the statement. I'm not sure what can be done to make progress, but I'm happy to talk about it if you ever want to kick it around. Metamagician3000 09:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I have been at this for a while. It can be hard finding definitive sources, though I do know who to ask about things. One of the problems with Wikipedia is the hyperincrementalism that happens; without a clear outline, a page can become an odd aggregation of not-closely-related comments. I've been thinking about how to rewrite the science fiction page. Hopefully I can resist the temptation to publish essays in relevant publications just for the purpose of citing them in Wikipedia. :) Avt tor 16:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, yeah I know the feeling. Actually, I am sometimes tempted to cite my own publications, but I then feel I should be discussing it on the talk page first ... which opens a can of worms. I started to rewrite the science fiction article at one point, but eventually gave up. It currently seems to be a morass. But I reckon I'll at least pay a bit more attention to the talk page for awhile. Metamagician3000 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in my comment on the talk page re science fiction and literary fiction. Metamagician3000 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am following watchlist closely, but do not have useful input on this. Avt tor 00:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Metamagician3000 03:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy stands of Joe Lieberman (8 Jan 2007)

Thanks for explaining why this article was created. It would be helpful to add more details about this to the talk page, too. At the time I tagged the article, there wasn't anything linking to it, so I think the tag was perfectly reasonable. However, now that it is linked from the main Joe Lieberman article, which means interested people can find it. I'll remove the {{linkless}} tag. FreplySpang 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Asimov.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Asimov.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Stargate (11 Jan 2007)

I've protected the Stargate article because of the edit war between you and Matthew. Please discuss the issue on the talk page. >Radiant< 11:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Battlestar Galactica for the same reason. >Radiant< 11:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you should ask me that, I'm not really versed in the subject matter. Perhaps the village pump, or RFC, or WP:3O, or a WikiProject could give you more input. >Radiant< 16:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood LOE (22 Jan 2007)

Please see the LOE talk regarding the addition of screen captures, Doctor Who universe LOEs do not use them, and all episodes already have far superior 16:9 images in their respective articles. I invite you to open discussion at the project talk. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#List_of_Torchwood_episodes_-_screen_captures thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to revert you for the second time, there is no reason why you need to replace an image file when one already exists, over write it with the upload a new version feature (which is on !every! image page!) - also explain how they are "overly dark" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason why you can't be respectful of other editors upload logs, you can use the UAN as it has a generic file name and you are uploading a new version for the episode, I don't understand why you try to make things so difficult? But yes, if you wish you may get a consensus to use new file names. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad thing to update images (I my self am happy with the present ones - but would not object to changing them when it is done right) however some users like to keep good upload logs (I consider my self one) and so mass-orphaning is rude when you could over write the present image easily and show respect when you use the UAN. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction assessments? (25 Jan 2007)

I note that you are adding assessments to articles in WikiProject Science Fiction. I'm glad this is happening, but I am wondering where the assessments are occuring and being documented? Avt tor 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the bot's broken? If so, it's been broken since around the 22nd, as that was when I added Serial Experiments Lain. - Malkinann 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bot is working fine, it's the changes that caught my attention. For example, on January 24, you marked Hugo Award as "Top" importance (I might consider it "High", but whatever) and "B"-class. Where is this discussion happening? Avt tor 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really discussing it with anyone, just going by feeling. I'd consider the Hugo Award top because people who aren't interested in SF at all would know about it. ie. it's (one of) the most famous SF award(s), and sometimes it gets on the news. I rated it as B because the text is reasonably mature, (length-wise, depth of coverage) but it hasn't been formally awarded a GA class. B is the highest ranking that can be given to an article without formal approval by non-involved editors. If you disagree with any of my assessments, you are free to change them. :) - Malkinann 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the usual practice? Somehow I got the impression there was discussion first. I'm a bit new to this. I suppose if I objected to something I'd take it to the talk page. Avt tor 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is for WP:ANIME. I don't know how other wikiprojects manage it. If you think about it, if we discussed every rating before we rated it, would we get anything done? If there's objections, then of course we can discuss it. - Malkinann 22:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Avt tor 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, mate. :) - Malkinann 22:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: List of anime conventions' criteria (27 Jan 2007)

Since you have participated in dispute regarding the criteria for List of anime conventions, your comments are requested for an RFC discussion. --Farix (Talk) 23:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lieberman (28 Jan 2007)

Thank you. I think the pared down paragraph is quite appropriate, and better than what I put back in (it was bloated). Did you hear today's news reports about him? Jd2718 21:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the other prominent senators are handled even more tersely, and worked into the opening paragraph. The war, Israel, crosses party lines... The shortest way to get those three in would be enough. I'm going to think about even more condensed. Jd2718 22:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Anime South (28 Jan 2007)

I would appreciate any vote, for or against, on this AfD.

Star Trek Vandalism (31 Jan 2007)

You reverted my reversion, citing me as the vandal. if you look at your reversion [1], you appear as the vandal. i assume it was a mistake, so i am re-reverting. The undertow 03:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i was looking at the edits and i should have been more jovial with you. it looks like vandalism was piggybacked so we both probably reverted the wrong version ;) The undertow 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of individual edits (31 Jan 2007)

I was looking in the Science fiction history for another person's edits and noticed dozens of your edits filling several pages, it's best to fit as many changes as you can into each edit. - Diceman 14:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've committed the same sin, especially while trying to fix citations (I've since learned to add temporary { { reflist } } and preview), and when tired. Hopefully over time, I'll suck less. Lexein 07:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment (31 Jan 2007)

Have a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment page and go from there any more questions, get back to me. It is largely subjective I know but is talk page stuff and the aims are spelt on on the page referenced and part of the WP:1.0 and related aims. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- all the best. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the "novel category" / "short story collection" thing, If you wish to discuss that over a specific example some time - very open to it. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Fair use (31 Jan 2007)

Would you clarify your latest comment in this talk section? I'm not very clear on what you mean or to whom you are responding. Thanks, Rklawton 18:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mensa page / vandalism (31 Jan 2007)

You're right, of course. I tend to think WP needs some kind of chatty level, too; non-inflammatory vandalism showing up on talk pages doesn't come across on my radar as vandalism. We all get a bit goofy at times, and doing so on a talk page is considerably better than doing so on an article page. As well, I suppose I'll become more vigilant with time. samwaltz 21:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, thanks for the perspective. I guess I could see grey areas - I've never had problems with phrases like "10 Jews, 11 opinions", but, I suppose there's a degree to which a statement becomes more acceptable as it's more *cough* accepted; ah well, it's still an ambiguous enough concept, considering how deeply racism and homophobia are still rooted/institutionalised in parts of the world, so I suppose there are other important criteria. Hrm. Well, anyway, I will be trying to keep my eyes wider open in the future.

Btw, I've noticed you tweaking a number of pages on my watchlist. I'm curious just how much overlap there is. Heh. samwaltz 17:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, okay. Yah, I've gotten involved in geographically local pages (currently commuting between Košice and Vienna, but still peeking in on Delaware-related articles). I've ended up crossing into a few other languages; I still do on occasion, but the feel of German Wikipedia is qualitatively different. I've tried adding a International Talk Like A Pirate Day page there, at which point it got deleted as vandalism. (*sigh* Germans) When the mood takes me, I'll dabble in some gaming things. Play around with libertarianism, political philosophy and literary theory when I get a chance. Being an expatriate develops some really interesing ideas about political participation and universal suffrage. The guilty pleasure, of course, is anything science fiction, esp. alternate history. Of course, my exposure to Sci-Fi is more limited when I'm not in English-speaking territories; I use Wikipedia to keep me in the loop. (I do thank the gods for QuantumMuse and Baen's online library.)

Now, I haven't really gotten involved with various WikiProjects as much as I'd been meaning to (in my copious free time :) ). How much work goes into developing one? samwaltz 16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPA (31 Jan 2007)

responded on my talk page. --SameerKhan 22:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2007

Trekists (1 Feb 2007)

They're rare. They're the ones who build copies of sets in their basements, & working (well...) phasers, & such like. I've never met one, & I've been a Trekker for 35yr, but I believe it. 09:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Science Fiction Project (1 Feb 2007)

just a quick note to say I fix a small error at the end of the template. Trust I did it correctly. There maybe an orphaned category lying around. They should have "plural" names by the way. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize (3 Feb 2007)

Sorry for that - I wasn't sure how the Cat:Sci-fi worked. Thanks for fixing Nicola Griffith :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SatyrTN (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC). (Dang that thing is quick!)[reply]

A note to Avttor (2 Feb 2007)

Good work in the SF world. I would appreciate your opinion on the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genre-groups

--Tbmorgan74 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variance (4 Feb 2007)

Hey. What is your opinion on which English dialect should be used in articles for TV shows produced in Canada? for example do you think American English would be correct in the Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) article or do you believe Commonwealth English should be used? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images to be removed (4 Feb 2007)

The following images were uploaded but should be removed. Apparently Wikiproject Doctor Who doesn't want images on their episode list, while for the Andromeda episode list, I have uploaded files with different file names, making these obsolete. Avt tor 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Torchwood S01E01.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Torchwood S01E01.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Torchwood S01E02.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Torchwood S01E02.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Torchwood S01E04.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Torchwood S01E04.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Torchwood S01E03.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Torchwood S01E03.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Andromeda Harper 2.0.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Andromeda Harper 2.0.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Andromeda Forced Perspective.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Andromeda Forced Perspective.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Andromeda The Sum of Its Parts.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Andromeda The Sum of Its Parts.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Andromeda Fear & Loathing in the Milky Way.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Andromeda Fear & Loathing in the Milky Way.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Andromeda The Devil Take the Hindmost.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Andromeda The Devil Take the Hindmost.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sf project discussion page

Thanks Avt tor for putting my comments in the right place. All the projects have their own little ways of doing this and aren't very standardized yet, and I sometimes don't find the right place. --lquilter 00:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments

I was wondering whether we could assist the working relationship between WP:NOVELS and WP:SF by extending our "Task Forces" further.

What I had in mind was one rather like the style of Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Military history where there is a subject overlap between the Korean project and the Military History project. We have our first task force established which is Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Short story task force and we are looking to gradually extend these to cover different arreas of special interest, probably "lliterature type" (as is the first), "genres" and maybe nationality or country based. However what I am proposing is a "Science fiction novels & prose task force" which would be as much part of WP:SF as WP:NOVELS. Reactions please, it would be better to work with rather than in different directions obviously. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So protentially that might give us one shared "task force" with yourselves, and you might find there are room for say three, one with us for "Novels and prose", one with the "Television" wikiproject, and one with the "Film" wikiproject. But those co-ops would depend on those wikiprojects of course. We could get one up and operational and then tout the idea to the others once operational. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have established a page (not yet published) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Science fiction task force for you to have a look at. I have intented it as a "Joint" page but as it has to go somewhere I have placed it in our project space. If you look at the Korean Military example they do that same thing. This is in no way cast in stone, so I would be gratefull if you could give it a look and let me know what you think. Then we can open up the debate wider. thanks :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get a chance to look at this :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science humour

Howdy. I just wrote Science humour, on the basis of Mathematical joke. Could you take a peek in, see if it meets the look-and-feel of Wikipedia, and maybe add a bit to the section Science Humour in Fiction? Cheers, samwaltz 12:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-consensus edits of Hard science fiction article

Ok. I create new last and least ;-) section of this article: Hard science fiction#Other notable writers of hard science fiction. This is good consensus for you? Q Original 19:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranting gryffon afd

Hello, you seems to have missed out one of the sub-pages for this nomination. I created it here so that the list would display properly, but I don't know your justification for the nomination, so you might like to edit it. Stringops 21:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:'Allo 'Allo! cast members

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series was closed with the statement that "listified" categories would be deleted. All the info in Category:'Allo 'Allo! cast members is also contained in 'Allo 'Allo!. Why shouldn't the category now be deleted? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

Category:'Allo 'Allo! cast members

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series was closed with the statement that "listified" categories would be deleted. All the info in Category:'Allo 'Allo! cast members is also contained in 'Allo 'Allo!. Why shouldn't the category now be deleted? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcon

Thanks for writing. I did go to the Worldcon article. From the number of uncited, "insidery" assertions, it gives the impression of having been largely written by someone associated with Worldcon, rather than an objective editor.

The article really doesn't address the points I brought up. Is Worldcon mounted by a volunteer organization, with no salaried employees? The article doesn't say. Does it have sponsorships? How does it pay for itself every year? The article doesn't say. The point about guests of honor being who is available comes from experience in the profession. I feel badly that my comments were taken personally. Are you associated with Worldcon?--Tenebrae 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

elron deletion

why you little trumped up ... just kidding. In reality, thank you for the consideration of letting me know. Gzuckier 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Elron Awards might be a useful search term and already seems to be the main part of VCON. How about simply redirecting there? --Tikiwont 13:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thnak for elaborating. I would not insist in redirecting this, so I left the prod tag. Even if someone later creates such a redirect, it would be without the categories. --Tikiwont 09:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you very much for your careful policing of the Joe Lieberman article. (Sure seems to get a lot of vandalism!) After this recent sweep of vandalism, I think we did a lot of good by noting on these people's pages what they did. We even blocked one especially obnoxious guy.

I am saddened to know that we have to share a planet (not to mention an online encyclopia) with these people, I'm just glad we're doing something to prevent this kind of stuff from happening.

Jules1236 03:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]