I've just seen the season finale, and am updating many of the pages to match. Don't go looking at recent edit histories if you haven't seen it yet. Travisl02:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
I've noted several images you have uploaded have been attributed as source to you and author to you [1][2][3]. Thanks for attempting to identify the source, but this is not accurate. The source of the images are the TV shows in question, and the author is the creators of the show. The first half of the sentence at Image:Medium -- 1x16.jpg where it says "This is a screencap from episde #1x16 of the tv series Medium" is sufficient as it indicates what the source is and the author is inferred as the creators of the show. All the best, --Durin19:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stating you as the source is copyright improper. You are not the source; the show is. You are not the author of the image. The creators of the show is. It's a matter of definition. You can say you created the screencap if you like, but you are not the source of the image or the author. --Durin20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Your User page says you like Stargate, Dead Like Me, Doctor who, Harry Potter, The 4400, and all those other Sci-fi things. If you were a woman I'd marry you right here and now. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac§20:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I figured you were male, since not many women are named Matthew. And, yes, I do like BSG, from the first film to the present, but not Galactica 1980 (YUCK!). And did I mention that Grace Park is totally hot? ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac§20:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We get S4C and channel 4. So the O.C. is on about 3 times a week in Wales, including E4. We get Channel 4 through Digital, so on sky digital 104 is S4C and 117 is channel 4, but in the rest of the UK 104 is channel 4.
Ryan280716:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop deleting sections. It is considered vandalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwebby91 (talk • contribs)
Thank you, I am aware; that begs the question of that section is even necessary, considering ALL of the characters have their own pages. Why do we need that extra description if we can condense it into one short section that links to all the characters? Jwebby9118:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding a new section, not violating any rules. You're deleting my helpful section, therefore there's no cause for you to report me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwebby91 (talk • contribs)
Isn't the information in that section repeating all the information on the pages that were created FOR those characters? I think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwebby91 (talk • contribs)
Alright, so couldn't you make a section that gives the background of the show by incorporating all the characters? In more of a paragraph format, I mean? Almost all TV shows on Wikipedia have character sections in the format that I outlined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwebby91 (talk • contribs)
So.. leave my section until other people object... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwebby91 (talk • contribs)
Hi. I created the template because I didn't like the episode chronology section. Earlier, the episode chronology was stated twice one with a link to the "list of episodes" and one without. Also, it had both the previous and next episodes on the same line that made some of the infoboxes look cluttered because of their long titles. I also realised the original television template had a colour attribute but I was mainly annoyed with the episode chronology part but didn't want to go and edit that in the "infobox television" template since there are a lot of articles using it. Do you think it is a better idea to have "previous" and "next" episodes on separate lines? -- Ladida00:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted you within a day of you first adding it. That should alert you to the fact that your proposal was one that required discussion, and not something that could go through straight away. That it went unnoticed for a week after that does not mean it has to go through. Furthermore you have accused me of "violating policy" in an edit summary, what policy is that? The template has been working fine for months before you added the colours, and it will continue to work without them until you get a consensus to start using them. ed g2s • talk23:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to be pick, it was just over a day and a half. Another user on the talk page objected. And stop claiming that because it was on the page for a few days, that makes it the status quo. The undisputed state of the template is how it was before your controversial edit. You want to implement this feature, so you get the consensus. ed g2s • talk23:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The changes I just made are syntactical. They change neither the appearance nor behaviour of the template. Nor have they been challenged. If you think there are grounds to challenge my last edit, please elighten me... ed g2s • talk23:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making major changes!? The template has been without parameters for month if not years! You've added them over the last few days hence it is up to you to get a consensus to add them. And I'd love to see where Wikipedia encourages the pointless addition of vaguely topic-connected colouring to pages... ed g2s • talk23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Take advantage" does not mean use all the time, even when unnecessary. Inline colouring of text has many drawbacks related to accessibility. You can't just come along and change the long-standing appearance of a high-use template without discussion. ed g2s • talk23:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, applying colour to inline text when it is not necessary is Bad. What looks good on the monobook skin may not look good another skin, or visually impaired users who have their browsers set up with a specified colours for suitable contrast. Furthermore the reason we use a skin at all is to give pages a consistent look. If we start colouring pages by topic just for aesthetic reasons, we'll end up looking like myspace. This may be acceptable on users pages, but the article space is supposed to look professional. ed g2s • talk23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If a concensous says remove then so be it, but it should be left there till then." - on what grounds? You can't just come along and change the long-standing appearance of a high-use template without discussion. ed g2s • talk00:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matthew, I thought I would let you know that I moved your 4400 character pages to new names, Tom Baldwin, Diana Skouris and so on. Wikipedia standard is to use the simplest name possible if there aren't any other clashes. I have fixed most of the links. Regards -- Chuq03:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that not everyone uses Monobook. I think it's horribly ugly, for instance, and stick with Classic. DS19:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Could you avoid using inappropriate edit summaries that accuse genuine editors of vandalism. [4] As you well know, AGF. Disagreeing with your changes doesn't make them a vandal. The JPStalk to me09:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check the edit history, this is the first time i've used the vandalism summary. I've used restore, rollback and Revert Good Faith, he continues to revert which causes disruption to the pages and messes up pages and so i have had to use the vandalism revert and req. protection. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 09:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ed isn't causing disruption to the pages: he's just disagreeing with your plans. There's no reason why your version should stay over the version that was there. I have asked an associated project for discussion to get informed outside views. Tho' I appreciate your logic (you want to use a colour associated with a partiuclar show in the infobox) Ed's reasons about professionalism and accessibility seem sensible. The JPStalk to me09:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. There's no need to relpy on my talk page because I'm watching yours. It's easier for third parties to keep track of a discussion if it's all in one place.[reply]
Okay np. Also i agree Ed can object, however it his manner in which he objects. I'm trying to gather concensous and reverting causes disruption to the template and hundreds of other pages. I'm also tring to implement his ideas, if he could converse and refrain from reverting we could gather concensous. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 09:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Someone may want to look here specificly "particularly spiteful email attacking Sergeant Snopake and I, twisting my words, just being a total dick" -- Blocking users for personal issues outside wikipedia should not be done as it is an abuse of power.
Moved to your talk page as WP:OFFICE is taking care of it, there is already a thread at AN, and too much already said about this. Hope you understand. Thanks -- Samirधर्म10:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're typing over each other this morning. You've done so much good work on The 4400 pages, I'll let you make the final decision as to whether Marco's an "agent" or not. I added my reference to the discussion page as you were looking for it. Travisl16:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Welcome, MatthewFenton, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.
Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.
In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.
If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Natalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC Tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!
Thanks for your 3RR report. I reviewed things and suggest no blocks at this time (I'm sure AMIB is aware of 3RR), and that you guys try to reach consensus on the relevant talk page before further revisions to the template. Thanks -- Samirधर्म12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Production" has a distinct meaning in the television industry. Production and filming do not have to take place in anywhere near the same location. DS16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MF asked after I reviewed the block for an editor not involved in the dispute to review the block. I am not involved in the dispute (and Redvers has reviewed it now anyway). I really suggest MF should take time away from the project, or review his RfC. To prove I am not "abusing" admin privilages, I will not edit the templates currently in dispute during the block. The JPStalk to me11:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Insanity13 has asked me to review the block on User:MatthewFenton. I have reviewed the original block, The JPS's comments and my own and find no reason to lift the block. I suggest that MF use the time to gain a sense of perspective about this matter. I am uninvolved in this dispute, have never edited and will never edit the templates currently in dispute. ➨ ЯEDVERS12:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I thought about that... BUT, the ISS Enterprise is also in the category, so... ;) Besides, categories are ultimately about user utility. See, there is a category named "Ships named Enterprise." In deference to real sailors, the Star Trek ships are a sub-cat of this. NX-01 needs to be in that sub-cat -- if that means that we need to rename the sub-cat to Enterprise Ships (Star Trek) to be technically correct, then we'll have to do that, I guess. Best wishes, Xoloz16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely! :) I can't wait! Though neither of us can watch it on TV 'til later. :( By the way, about your earlier message, I hope you don't mind if I don't enter that debate. My opinion may be considered biased since I created the Prison Break episode infobox. I think I'll let you guys and the other administrators reach a consensus about this. Sorry. Anyway, hope you have a nice day. :) Ladida11:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ARGH! I've been autoblocked! So I had to wait a while before I could answer. It was actually quite cold last week. But yesterday, it reached 24 degrees celcius. Today wasn't that cold either. Spring is coming. Sigh. -- Ladida11:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some vandalist was using the same IP address as me. Sigh! grrr.... I hate sharing the same IP addresses with them. -- Ladida11:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, the tail fins are precisely what I noticed during the recap. It's odd that a number of sites out there do call it a science vessel, or just "ship"; I don't recall finding any that explicitly call it an O'Neill. I'm just glad they showed that particular battle scene during the 200th Episode Special. -- HuntsterT • @ • C15:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's why I felt that Sue Anne only assumed bad faith on me:
Talk 1: Many of your edits, in my opinion, cross the line when it comes to cruft and throwing in your opinions and/or personal wording to things
Saying "Cross the line" is somewhat a colloquial term and/or cliche that shouldn't be used. I'm not sure if that should be used in an article, but why do people use "Cross the line" because to me, that sound like a bit too extreme and harsh.
Talk 2: Saying "Trumped"
This is also extremely harsh criticism and/or having either bad or no faith whatsoever. Some of the words in my talk page I will really think that the user has either bad or no faith if his/her choice of wording tends to lead to me believing that the user has either bad or no faith.
Considering that Sue Anne has either bad or no faith at all, I had to start debating the use of caps at the discussion "Manual of Style--Capital Letters" as I have to debate the use of caps because my style of using caps is different than others. Please feel free to comment what you need to comment at the provided link discussion. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 14:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well he's a hard-working editor who makes lots of useful additions and suggestions to the project. So I TOTALLY agree with you - Matthew is pretty cool. --Charlesknight21:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so I guess in your situation, you need to find someone you are happy with as a mentor and see if they are willing to act in that capacity. --Charlesknight21:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having originally designed the Infobox Company and Infobox Celebrity templates, the templates were not designed with entertainment in mind. In fact, the celebrity infobox was primarily designed for any celebrity in any field, including business, such as Bill Gates. The "preferred" style is that which has been achieved through consensus for Infobox Company. Adraeus21:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. No optional variables have been "broken". I've tested the template on several articles, including Bill Gates.
2. The 3RR limits users to three reverts. I'm well-acquainted with that rule...
3. By the way, placing the name inside the infobox is considered nonstandard and bad form.
Matthew, if you have the time, could you do me a favour and have a look at my edits on this [page. As you can see this [editor] is unhappy about my changes. So they have gone and done [this]. (scroll down until you see my name).
As far as I can see, all of my edits have removed material that really does not below in an encyclopedia - however if you don't feel that's the case, give it to me both barrels, as I have done to you a couple of times
Don't worry about it - the only two people it would affect would be me and him - in addition because he's not followed any of the guidance of what you need to do before you go there, it would get tossed out on it's arse.
I like the new The 4400 infobox, but think that the teal-on-turquoise font color for the title and Episode chronology is a tiny bit hard to read. If the font were a shade darker, I think it would work better.
Also, the image caption should be a smaller font, to match those used in standard images in Wikipedia.
With your extensive TV show edits, you probably know better than I do, but it'd be nice to have the episode number on one line ("Episode 3.7" or "3x07") instead of the current two ("Season 3< br >Episode 7"). Travisl16:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't give promicin its own article; it definitely warrants its own section on The 4400 (which it has), but I don't know that it would ever be more than a stub. I don't think it's capitalized. Nine out of the 12 mentions of it at [6] have it lower-case, and one of the capitalized was in the (wrongly?) capitalized phrase "Promicin Scandal". Beyond that, it's a generic name, not a brand name. Although we capitalize the brand names of Tylenol, Advil, and Amoxil, we don't capitalize the generic drug names of acetaminophen (paracetamol), ibuprofen, and amoxicillin. Travisl19:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MatthewFenton and Shannernanner, could you take a look at and improve Haspel Corporation? Matthew, as the screenshot guru, can you grab a frame from the last 60 seconds of "Graduation Day" for the page?
Also, Matthew, you asked me yesterday if you thought promicin should have its own page. I've thought about it for the last day, and have changed my mind; it probably should.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Yup, they're starting to flesh out nicely. After tomorrow's episode, we'll have another nine months to work on them before any new episodes come out. Travisl09:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, could you refrain from editing my user page again in the future?. I'll update the links myself when I see it fit. --Andromeda19:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as articles go, I have no problem with that. But that's my user page, and have you stopped to think I may have it that way for some reason? I think editing an user page is rude, even if it's not against rules. --Andromeda19:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think it was a favour. I don't go around Wikipedia changing user pages, no matter how much they irk me or hurt my eyes, and I expect the same courtesy. Do not everyone sees the world your way. --Andromeda19:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, Matthew--WHY do you keep seeking out conflict? Editing someone else's user page, uninvited, is rude. Go get a second opinion on this, rather than just stick to your guns. This is why you have an RfC, and this is why people have suggested that you get yourself a mentor. -- PKtm19:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, i honestly cannot be botherd, if you are scared people will edit your page then request protection. You also need to WP:AGF, as i believed i was doing you a favour updating non-existant pages; Also for future reference: WP:OWN (PS: You can't have porn ;-)) thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not scared of anyone, I'm just asking for courtesy. And if I wasn't assuming good faith, I would have done something else than asking you politely. You don't need to quote me that page again, I already answered to you above. Please, stay away from my user page. Thanks. --Andromeda19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you ever consider asking people not to edit the userpage? Your telling me to be courteus, yet you have not left an implicit message and scalding me for doing you a favour. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all with replacing the screen caps. I don't have the capability of grabbing those myself, so I pulled them off of the usanetwork.com pages. I appreciate the consistency. Not jerk-like at all. And thanks for including me in the WikiProject. Travisl17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: pictures of minor characters: Either we should include pictures for all of them, or pictures for none. As we don't have pictures available for some of them, it'd probably be best to not have pictures, or to include them as part of the episode (e.g., as you did with Carl Morrisey) or escalate them to another category on The 4400 of "Recurring Characters" and give them their own page (e.g., April Skouris, Tess Doerner, Heather Tobey, and Gary Navarro) Travisl17:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this classification split:
Major characters: They're listed in the opening credits of any season, while "A Place in Time" is playing. They get listed on The 4400 and get their own page (e.g., Maia). Does Megalyn Echikunwoke appear in the opening credits? She should.
Frequently recurring characters: They've been in four or more episodes or have great significance to the plot in multiple episodes. They get listed on The 4400 and may get their own page (e.g., Tess, Kyle, Marco)
Other recurring characters: They've been in three or more episodes but don't have great plot significance in more than one episode (e.g. Heather Tobey, Matthew Ross)
I'm sorry you perceived my comment to User:Andromeda as an attack. All I did was advise him that I thought it was pointless to try to convince you that it is rude to edit someone's user talk page without invitation. And I directed him to your RfC. That's the last I will have to say on the matter, other than to note that you're proving my point (and everyone else's point). Find a mentor, guy, as I and other more experienced editors have repeatedly advised you to do. -- PKtm17:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Click on the image you wish to upload a new file for:
- Scroll down to "File History"
- Underneath will be some text saying "Upload a new version of this file"
Then upload your file and edit image sumamry accordingly"
the file I want to update doesn't say that anywhere, even using the Searching function to find it.
EDIT: And besides uploading the updated image using the same name as the original doesn't allow me to update it, forcing me to create a whole new page for the image.
How do you get all of the print screens of Stargate when I hit print screen I can’t get a picture. It goes black when I save it. I have tried downloading print screen softwhere but it has the same problem. Ideas? Nathan nfm03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the link. I didn't realized that that was "spam" even though the link was about the show and stuff. Oh well, it doesn't matter. About the link. I was scrolling upwards, and my mouse accidently clicked, and I tried to fix it. I thought I put the right number. Sorry if I wrecked it. I'm a bit tired, so maybe I should get off, and edit at a more appropriate time. :-) My deepest apologizes though.--andrew09:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never knew about Ctrl Z. I will bare that in mind well editing though. I'll try to be more careful though when I'm tired. andrew09:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. I'll be heading back to school after Labour Day anyhow, so plenty of opportunities for me to take a photo either before or during that time. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?!17:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are speaking of the Daedalus class ship page article, if so, I reverted the changes of user 83.157.119.6 because this is a person who only edited this on a whim for no reason, also, those other stats have been there a while without any provocation from anyone so it's just the case of an anonymous user changing things arbitrarily.
There is a pic of the Rose Garden available for use at the University of British Columbia article. I'm not sure if you want to use it though; the colours are really off there (problem with lighting contrast levels). I'll take some Rose Garden photos anyway though, trying to avoid those contrast problems. (I'm thinking of taking a panorama shot, similar to the one I did yesterday for White Rock.) So I guess you can use the existing pic in the meantime while I go out and try to get better shots... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?!00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a pic of the Rose Garden available for use at the University of British Columbia article. I'm not sure if you want to use it though; the colours are really off there (problem with lighting contrast levels). I'll take some Rose Garden photos anyway though, trying to avoid those contrast problems. (I'm thinking of taking a panorama shot, similar to the one I did yesterday for White Rock.) So I guess you can use the existing pic in the meantime while I go out and try to get better shots... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?!00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a pic of the Rose Garden available for use at the University of British Columbia article. I'm not sure if you want to use it though; the colours are really off there (problem with lighting contrast levels). I'll take some Rose Garden photos anyway though, trying to avoid those contrast problems. (I'm thinking of taking a panorama shot, similar to the one I did yesterday for White Rock.) So I guess you can use the existing pic in the meantime while I go out and try to get better shots... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?!00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could just merge all relevant info into a more general article and create a redirect. That would save you time with the AfD and all. --Fang Ailitalk21:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I got lucky though; it was supposed to rain today and I was thinking of waiting until Friday to get my textbooks. But the weather decided to cooperate -- too good an opportunity to pass up. :) They were filming Psych near the Chan Centre today too. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?!08:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm trying to hunt down the HaspelCorp location. By its architecture, I think it might be somewhere on campus too. My hunch is one of the Faculty of Forestry buildings (like the Forest Sciences Centre). As for NTAC, I also have a hunch on where the exteriors might be (the interiors are obviously studio-filmed). As a side note, you may recognize some of the university's buildings from Smallville, if you watch that show; it stands in for Metropolis University. Very popular location, the university, especially in a film city like Vancouver. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?!08:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vancouver's awesome, especially its film industry. I'm a full-time student, but I work as a film and television extra (or, as they call us, "background performer") on the side. Smallville's an awesome show; I've asked my extras agent to see if she can get me on that show. But I think The 4400 will always have a place in my heart, because my first-ever job as an extra came on that show, in a scene with Andrew Airlie and Laura Allen. Very memorable. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?!08:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for the barnstar! That was unexpected. :) And yeah... Laura Allen was super nice. Andrew Airlie was a little pissed at the weather that day (it was alternating between sun and cloud, causing chaos for the camera crew, who need consistant lighting for the shots). If you have a good memory, it's the scene when Lily assures Brian that she, Richard and Isabelle are fine and haven't been infected with the promicin sickness, and Brian offers to help anyway he can. I'm the blue-helmeted cyclist who whizzes by him. :) Anyways, I'm going to bed. Thanks again. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?!09:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be rude. You know very well that when someone makes a suggestion it's usually because they don't have time to implement it, especially when that suggestion is for hundreds of episode pages. You also know that I am working on Smallville, and requesting that those that mainly edit the Simpsons, Stargate, South Park, and the OC to tidy up their pages is more responsible than doing it myself. For one thing, I don't watch those shows and really don't have a clue on where to find good information for them. No one has taken the time to properly educate the other users on how to adequately and properly develop an episode article. You were part of the same discussion I was and the subject of how all these other articles are wrong came up many times, but yet you didn't take it upon yourself to inform the usual editors of those pages about the problem. Next time please use a bit of civility and etiquette when someone lists a problem with a page. If they aren't making the changes themselves it's usually because they don't have the time and resources available to do so, but that doesn't mean that it should go unchecked. Thank you Bignole13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not all people consider adding legitimate links spamming, but I guess if it's bothering you so much that it's not up to your quality of O.C. web sites, I'll never touch the article again. Since the site deals with television, and is not some crappy fan site, I thought it would count as a link. Oh well. --andrew08:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i am so sorry, i meant to write a comment explaining why i did so but i stupidly forgot that the popups revert doesn't let you do that after i clicked it out of habbit :#.. what i was going to say is that the svg image has awfully lower quality than the png one and its background is opaque not transparent so it's not much to look at.. --PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 11:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You keep deleting this, but it's not a gallery, it's just one pic. How could you have a gellry of just one pic? Also WP:FU says nothing about galleries. Tobyk77716:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that the next time a user responds to your actions by discontinuing interest in an article you might want to provide a less curt response and maybe foster continued interest in the article and Wikipedia as a whole. WP:BITE. Trivia exists all over Wikipedia, killing this article's trivia section is obviously not top on the list to go. I also disagree with both of your edits (wh was the episode guide nixed?), and have reverted the blanking. For one, the non-existence of a Jericho, KS, and the existence of a Jericho, KS at one time, are both of interest to the article, as there is obviously no Jericho, Kansas to link to. - BalthCat08:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you can lighten up this image, 100px, or find another one? It's too dark for anyone not really, really familiar with that scene to tell what's going on. Travisl22:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - great content on Wake Up Call (The 4400 episode) and the others. I hope you don't mind me going in and tweaking them like I have been. I haven't been "americanizing" some of the British English spellings I've seen, except I changed "mummy" to "mommy" because it was a quote from a (fictionally) american character. Should I be, seeing that it's a US-produced TV show taking place in the US? I vaguely recall that wiki-policy is to leave it spelled however it was first used in the article, but I'm not certain of that. Oh, and the new image is much better! Travisl20:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, thanks for putting MyWikiBiz.com up for AfD. Better that it sees the light of day, and discussion is had. Just so you know, I wasn't directing my comment about "failing WP:CORP" to you. I was referring more to the folks who either (a) said that they vote Delete, "per the nominator" (do they not know the meaning of Abstain?), or (b) said that they vote Delete, "per WP:CORP". I find that people who swing that around often haven't actually read it lately, if ever. --MyWikiBiz16:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some unsolicited advice (usually the only kind worth a damn)
You're just asking for headaches with this crusade against articles on the nobility. It seems you have other more productive interests here, so I'm not really sure why you've been unable to let it go. I hope it's not some personal vendetta against me (comments like this one make me wonder) because I don't even participate in those discussions (or even pay attention to most of them). I know you were frustrated in our discussion, and I'm sorry about that.
This is clearly something you feel strongly about, but you're bashing your head against a brick wall. I did something similar a long time ago, and I'm glad I moved on. In my case, it was getting rid of articles about minor characters in The Shield and The Sopranos. Consensus was actually on my side in those cases, and I was able to make the changes I wanted, but it was still an uphill struggle. Yours is even more hopeless, because you don't have any of the support that I had. The fact of the matter is that most people feel that even minor members of a royal family are at least as notable as, say, Marco Pacella who (being fictional) has never done anything.
A lot of great contributors enjoy trivial subjects on Wikipedia. Let's be honest: chances are, almost everyone who spends hours on end editing an Internet encyclopedia has at least a little geek in him. Some of them like Star Wars, some like The Sopranos, some like the 4400, some like Dragon Ball Z, some like Magic cards, and some like the nobility. Most of them also do good work editing elsewhere, fighting vandalism, working on Featured Articles, and writing about important real-life subjects. Crusading to stamp out any subject only means we're alienating those fans, and when we do that we lose great editors. Let people have their niche interests, whether it be Nina Jarvis or Princess Luisa Maria. Nobody gets hurt, and everyone wins. Kafziel23:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "at the time it was taken it was Earth"? That image was taken in July from an episode most likely "The Seige", I did see the image history and I checked it and both images are 100% the same, so did you change it just to have it your way? What is the point of that? Plus, I must assume it was taken from www.stargatecaps.com, they don't even have pics from last night's ep yet and the Daedalus has NEVER been shown in Earth orbit before.
Why are you trying to say you are right? This image was taken from "The Seige" which would make it a pic of it orbiting Atlantis, not Earth.
Never mind, I see what you're trying to do, you're trying to change the pic and it's not working properly, I'm getting the old pic still. Also, that pic was used for the Odyssey in "Off the Grid". Please leave the image alone, the old one is a better shot of it.
Also, what do you mean don't post in the archive? I tried your "leave me a mesage" thing and it doesn't work.
Then just call him something like a "geek" which I am fairly sure he has been called before, don't just completely revert a new person's edit. J.J.18:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The after-effects are fixed. And you're not the best one to critique anyone for a small mistake. You heavily broke {{Stargate race}} not so long ago. So lose the condescending tone. --Andromeda23:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not dead tho. The old TV channel still broadcasts old episodes and updates its website, but the show's new channel shows new episodes. godgoddingham333
No. Say you have a TV program broadcast on Fox. It has its own Fox website. Then the program moves to ABC with its own ABC website. ABC show new episodes whilst Fox replays old ones. However both still keep their websites and so it has 2 official websites. godgoddingham33317:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was offline when you asked for help, but it looks like it was taken care of. I'm highly dubious about the "brothers" argument, but if "they" can fix the "bug" that was damaging the article, I hope that a consensus can be reached about the paragraph "they" were concerned about. However, if the "bug" is not resolved I'll block both accounts for longer periods. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "rp - prev. has no source & author info + cap already at Sateda article."
Just for the record, there is a source and author, if you would read the Rationale. Furthermore, my screenshot was there first with a post tag of 00:56, 5 August 2006 and yours was 07:08, 5 August 2006. On top of that, you broke the established Licensing Standard convention. Your also not supposed to insert screenshots on the individual episode pages. Insertion into the main article, automatically causes the image to be inserted into the individual episode template. This page clearly shows that my image was there before yours, so your reasoning is not justified by saying that it was "already at Sateda article." I'm reverting the change. -therearenospoons19:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Mine is superior to yours in that it is smaller and shows a key moment in the episode. (PSS: Please do not be offended i changed your image ;-)) MatthewFenton (contribs)19:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: PS: If you think so then why didn't you state it instead of stating some blatant lie about it not being there. Say what you mean, and not do what you do not say. Lies have no basis.
RE: PSSS: I disagree. It couldn't be anymore clearer. If you look at all the Stargate SG-1 screenshots, you will see that none go out and state that. The fact that SG-1 is a Featured List article proves that it is necessary and sufficient. All Stargate Atlantis episodes as well as Stargate SG-1 episode screenshots have the same exact licensing except with appropriate references to their article. For you to go out and change it, you are changing the established convention, therefore making the entire article inconsistent. -therearenospoons20:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to change it for that reason, change it, but state that you believe it "shows a key moment in the episode" and not some for "has no source & author info + cap already at Sateda article." I'm fine with that as long as it's truthful :) but don't go trying to give others a bad name by not checking the histories :( -therearenospoons20:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is the SGA intro image, you must not have much idea on how wiki works. When you edit "List of.." etc, the image doesnt automaticly get placed in the episode article. MatthewFenton (contribs)20:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you want to include the animated series then please correct the year from 1987 to whenever the animated series started. KennyLucius19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the article Image:Fotos010.jpg, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "Nn person", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because only articles about non-notable people can be eligible for speedy deletion, not photographs. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:IFD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you tagged the vitsoe article as copyvio ... which it is, but did you also follow the instruction in the template and add it to the discussion page? -- ∞Wirelain15:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know what the reasons were behind your deleting "How to Build a Cat 5 Cable" article that I posted? I personally did not write it, but it was written from someone in my company, and I was posting it here. It is also posted on both of our websites. www.cat-5-cable.com/building-cat-5-cable.html and www.comtradcables.com/cat-5-cable/cat-5-cable.aspx. If you could please list your reasoning behind this action, I would appreciate it.
Hi Matthew. I'm a little confused as to who you changed the link on the Sci Fi Channel in the Battlestar Galactica article to point to scifi as a general article rather than the channel. I'm presuming it was just a slip and I've fixed it. Ben W Belltalk09:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem, I figured it was just a slip and not deliberate (ignore the edit comment I choose the wrong one from my list). I took the oppurtunity to update it to Sci Fi Channel (which is how they spell themselves these days) and link it to the Sci Fi Channel (United States) page. Ben W Belltalk10:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have completely re-written this article, and asserted notabilty. Please visit the page, and revisit your nomination and delete vote. Thanks! Aguerriero (talk)17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because scifi is a gross insult to my intelligence, and yours too if you are a fan of sf. As a science fiction fan I am not interested in "scifi", and neither is anyone else who knows anything more than a little about the genre. To refer to science fiction as "scifi" is like referring to model railways as "choo-choos". It is a major insult and shouldn't be used by people who should know better - such as Wikipedia editors. Note that there was previously a page called Sci-Fi which explained all this - it now appears to be a redirect, sadly.
Everywhere else on the page, the term used as an abbreviation for science fiction is SF - and Wikipedia pages should be consistent. If SF is used on one part the page, it should be used on the whole page.
perhaps it's one of those "different countries, different rules" things, but I have seen real fist-flying fights started by someone suggesting someone is into sci-fi. Grutness...wha?12:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category I made is supposed to be for users with the {{User AAAA}} template on their page. User page categories are by nature unencyclopedic. But I guess you can delete it if you really want to. --Mr. LeftyTalk to me!18:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Please keep in mind that warning without any meaning is considered vandalism and uncivil. Please keep that in mind before you start stalking users because of their behaviour. ed g2s has been in arguments with me before aswell, but warning for something that he believes is policy is not the way to go, I would rather you take part in Wikipedia:Fair use by telling us why screenshots and the like should be allowed on Wikipedia. This message was given to you and Larsinio. Havok(T/C/c) 16:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He believes that screenshots of games should have a "political commentary" to be used in articles. I've e-mail BradPatrick about how illegal it is to have the screenshots there. Until then, just leave it. And I would still suggest you two check out fair use. Havok(T/C/c) 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--PKtm16:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your defense of "I'd only reverted twice" on the List of Lost episodes page: Um, yes, you had in fact already reverted to the screenshot version three times, and were clearly on the road (with all the Star Trek "shields at full" rhetoric in your edit comments) to more. Specifically:
12:30, 27 June 2006 MatthewFenton (Talk | contribs) (readd screenies s01 -- unless you can provide a valid reason why there not fair use then they stay! (Shields at full. Ready main rail guns. Ready all missile batteries.))
14:06, 27 June 2006 MatthewFenton (Talk | contribs) (rv -- unless you can provide a valid reason why there not fair use then they stay! (Shields at full. Ready main rail guns. Ready all missile batteries.)
In this case, you've now managed, through rhetoric and testosterone, to get the page protected. Not good. "Poking the bear" is not a successful Wikipedia approach. -- PKtm04:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. But, you misunderstand the WP:3RR policy. Inserting the same basic stuff three times (the screenshots, which had been removed many times before) constitutes three reverts. Please review the policy. I also saw your note to another user, where you wrote, "Yea, I'd already thought about that on my 2nd or third rv i'm going to make a minor text mod thus its not a revert :) ". You can't game the system in this manner, Matthew. -- PKtm15:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, thanks again for your reply, and your spirited defense. However, you're not getting my point. Please see WP:3RR, where it states,
Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention.
Why did you revert my edit of the article on William Gaines? I corrected two spelling errors. You have restored the errors. (Please reply here and not on my Talk page, so that other Wikipedians can follow the conversation.) Pat Berry15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. My software i was using flagged it as possible vandalism and i had a quick look it looked like someone had been throwing in <no wikis>, It was my mistake and ill restore your version now. Sorry. MatthewFenton (contribs)16:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey buddy, Its not your job to decide which links are suitable for the "External Links" section of the Windows Live Messenger page, if your going to remove all "unofficial" pages then atleast be consistent and remove those outdated MSNPiki and Hypothetic MSN protocol pages (yes, most the information on the websites is years old) both of which are totally unofficial. MessUnit.com might not be an official blog but it sure as hell has up to date information on WLM - unlike this wiki.
(I would sign my name but I have no idea how - O-B-Trice)
I noticed you inserted a userbox on your user page, claiming to be a Wikipedia administrator. Please remove it. Thanks. -- PKtm22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've reported someone for breaking the 3RR rules. Reverting 3 times IS allowed; it's that 4th reversion that breaks the rule, and I don't see that the 4th has happened. Joyous! | Talk16:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you have a personal issue with the Template:User wikipedia/Administrator template and its image, having used the template to falsely claim to be an administrator on your user page.[7] You removed the image when another editor called you on this.[8] Exactly 27 minutes after being called on using this template, you brought this template up for deletion and then, when that failed by a speedy keep decision, tried to have the template's image removed. This is definately a case of WP:POINT and, since consensus on the template's image has been reached, if you revert the template image again that will be considered vandalism. I hope you won't do this. Best,--Alabamaboy17:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This info wasn't all in the discussion. If you read the above info, it also tells you not to revert that image again or that will be considered vandalism. The info also tells other editors what the situation is with regards to you editing this template. Best,--Alabamaboy17:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another way of seeing the issue might be that since admins are the only ones to consistently use the image, they were the one to notice when you changed the image. Personally, I'd let this one go. You seem like a good editor and pursuing WP:POINT issues like this will only tick other editors off. Best,--Alabamaboy18:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators, I need your help with MatthewFenton
Matthew Fenton is not letting me add a link to the MessUnit (http://messunit.com) unnoficcial Windows Live Messenger blog to the Windows Live Messenger page, he claims that im "link spamming" but it's only one site and its much more relevant than several of the other external links, I asked that if he was going to remove my link he should atleast be consistent and remove the link to the Hypothetic MSN Protocol site, because I know for a fact that that site only covers the much older MSN Messenger protocols and hasn't been updated for about 2 years!!! There are also links to several other unofficial sites like Mess.be and MSNPiki - both of which are sites for MSN Messenger and not Windows Live Messenger. This is clearly a case of favoritism. He is enforcing rules that don't exist, and if they do exist hes only enforcing them on the sites he dosn't like.
I am new to Wikipedia and I would appreciate your help.
O-B-Trice
I didn't know the incident was so serious. In the future just rv and tell me to go away. :) Ohh, I guess the user doesn't like you much for listing their site for deletion. Hehe. Annoying spammers! :( --Andeh10:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they mean the same thing. "Stargate Atlantis personnel" makes it seems if the page includes all the people that appear in the series, whereas the list only includes the Earth-born characters permanently stationed in Atlantis or the Daedalus. Perhaps the name can be changed, but that one was not correct, in my view. --Andromeda13:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However I would like to point out, as a neutral point, galleries of fair use images is copyright violation, as for the other accuations you have made, I am not in a position to comment. PhilcTECI21:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So a user who very rarely edits suddenly turn up from one of those breaks and starts reverting in an edit war to the same version with the same edit summary as another user in that war. Seems a pretty transparent case of sockpuppetry to me,as indeed the blocking admin also felt. --pgk(talk)16:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to do an IP check, sockpuppetry is normally determined by behviour, IP checking is not foolproof it can add weight to a claim of sockpuppetry if found positive, but if found negative does not disprove sockpuppetry. The blocking admin saw traits of sockpuppetry, I looked independantly and reached the same conclusion. --pgk(talk)16:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might also like to read gaming the system, and WP:3RR#Intent_of_the_policy. 3RR is to stop edit warring, doing an number of reverts then asking a friend to continue the war is against the intent of the policy, to stop disruption caused by edit warring, it is in essence gaming the system. If it had been know at the time that he was joining in on your behalf you would both have been blocked. --pgk(talk)16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I am not willing to unblock since I wasn't responsible for blocking in the first place. I suggest you leave a note for the blocking admin an ask them to look into it. --pgk(talk)16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have since provided source information in my recently uploaded image and it is now used in the Windows Live Messenger article (replaced your image). So, I have removed your notices on the image page. --Thorpe | talk12:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I realised that when you said the image (PNG) was taken by you. Did not know you uploaded new version. If you look in the history of Image:WLM.PNG you'll notice I did know. --Thorpe | talk13:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the BSG logo from the Userbox? It didnt have the text BSG in order to differentiate bwetween just liking the series and actually contributing to the wiki. I have reverted it back as you left no reasson in the edit history for this change. If there is some kind of rule against having logos in userboxes please leave a note on my userpage explaining it. Thanks --Mercifull09:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
It's unfortunate that you feel that I am attacking British English and fascists, etc. Both of them are meant strictly to be humorous. Plus, the Brit?American English one is informative. I will gladly remove the one about fascists etc after I write this, it doesn't bother me to do so, but I believe that insinuating that the Brit English usebox is a 'personal attack' is a stretch, as 1)it's a dialect and 2)the personal attacks userbox applies to users. I don't feel that I have insulted anyone with it, or maybe you're the first. Please let me know if it honestly bothers you -Bri20:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the cleanup templates, we standardised on the blue colour scheme quite some time ago. (We actually have it written into the site's CSS.) I attempted to integrate this into Cwolfsheep's code, but I was unsuccessful. —David Levy19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,
Regarding your revision of the Daedalus article, you said that it was never stated that the Missiles mk number was using Roman numerals. True though, but I think that it should be reverted back to the way it was. It's pretty much a standard to name those things in the Roman numerals and since Stargate/Atlantis have military advisors, I'm assuming that they would follow suit.
Really? Interesting. I guess it's a family-centered thing, my family knows them as do I. Thanks for clearing it up. -- Faris b20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep changing the images to yours? The images I provided are Fair Use and they are far better than the ones you keep changing them too. Konman7201:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The url isn't working because their site is temporarily down. Try it again in a few minutes and it will work fine. I'm changing it back and you have no reason to change it back to your own so please stop. Konman7210:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"An act of war" are you insane? The image is from stargatecaps.com. Check the main url, the site is down. I have already changed the image, at least wait a while until the site is working. Check out this google search to prove that the site exists...
If you click the link now it will not work but if you wait until they get back up then go to "SG-1" then "Season 10" then "Flesh and Blood" and you will find it. Konman7210:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, my aim is to get the best picture, not my own. So if you can take screenshots then just take one of the scene I am using and I will stop changing the picture. In the one you keep using you can't even see the fighter, which is the whole point Konman7210:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That pic is great, works for me. I understand wanting to show the battle, but the entry is about the fighter...which you can't even see in that pic lol. Sorry to have gotten into an edit war with you but it seemed like you were just wanting to push your picture into the article, the one now works great in my opinion, so I'll mark mine for deletion. Konman7211:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and about my userpage: I don't know how to use tables, so if you can figure out a way of getting the Infobox on the right, the Userboxes on the left and the "Wikipedian" infobox in the middle, be bold and help me! lol. Thanks Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. IIITalk to me!09:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, you seem to be taking things too personnally. Avoid this path. As of this image, you may want to warn the original uploader. All I did was just edit the image's svg code to reduce it's size. --Abu Badali16:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That looks and sounds more like an edit disagreement. Feel free to re-list on WP:AIV and I'll leave it alone - but that edit you gave doesn't look like vandalism to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite awhile ago a discussion was held with several people in which we decided that on the OC page that Autumn Reeser and Willa Holland SHOULD NOT be listed in the main cast list until the fourth season debuts. They have been confirmed as part of the cast list, but the decision we came up with was that changes in such an unstable show like the OC shouldn't be listed until they actually take place. Which is why I moved Holland and Reeser from the main cast down to the regulars again. I removed Lisa Tucker as "Guest Stars" generally does not include one who speaks 7 words on one episode of a show and is then never seen nor heard from again. I had changed it quite awhile ago to say "Notable Guest Appearances" to encompass those people (like Tucker) who did not "star" in any episode, yet nevertheless made an appearance in them. There was no blanking of pages involved. Batman200520:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might also help for you to learn to assume good faith in edits, rather than just coming and issuing a warning when clearly none was needed. Please don't respond, I don't need your rudeness. Batman200522:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you not to respond, i do not believe you assumed good faith, you told me that I blanked a page....which you were completely and totally wrong about. Good day to you, i'm through with your pointless discussion. I don't assume good faith where none was assumed in the first place. Batman200522:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trolling my talk page and inputting your nonsense. You issued a warning where none was warranted, you were proven wrong, if you don't like it i'm sorry, but stop trolling my page. Batman200522:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knew three years ago when I edited and voted for 3RR policy that it would eventually bit me back. So its of course a great irony that an editor with actual "tons of edits" (and not just a sticker which claims so) gets harrassed for 3RR - I assume for the science fiction article - when in fact what I was doing was actually improving it. But maybe youre one of those busy admins who doesnt bother to check out the page they are reading. Thanks, -Ste|vertigo15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are often only active for a few days or weeks, but remain to be read for years. It's important for wiki-savvy editors to encourage newbies to (A) sign their postings with datestamps, and (B) use the new-topic (+) tab to start a new discussion in the correct place (a failure especially pernicious due to the popularity of blogs, which frequently use the reverse order), so that the rest of the world reading these discussions can follow the chronological flow and understand the development of content discussions. I only did what more active editors of Talk:Dead Like Me should have done weeks ago, when it wouldn't have been so disruptive. Also, you shouldn't post a comment to someone's talk page about an edit without at least citing the page in question. Finally, an ellipsis is three periods (dots), not two. (You wouldn't happen to be a Pascal programmer, would you? ☺) ~ Jeff Q(talk)15:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving doesn't solve the flow problem, although it's certainly a good idea, especially now that the discussions are in correct order. (I fixed the remaining order problems after adding some missing timestamps, and also moved a non-sequitur from one topic to its own.) I've added a {{talkheader}} to the talk page to help avoid the situation in the future. (The Pascal reference was a (poor) attempt at computer-nerd humor, alluding to the fact that the it uses two periods as ellipses.) ~ Jeff Q(talk)16:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message. I am perfectly entitled to disput ethe fair use status of that image, and I have, therefore, readded the tag to attract the attention of a third party. The third party should be the one to remove it, not you. Some of the message you left on my takl page was rather impolite, for which there was no need. The JPStalk to me13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. The JPStalk to me14:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not blanking. 1) You put back a parameter we worked hard to delete and 2) The colour you put clashes with the other colours. That someone does not agree with your edits it's not "blanking". --Andromeda15:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I removed text! But that's not blanking. Blanking is removing all text, not just the wrong part of it! And I still don't like your changes, it makes the "Stargate Character" part very hard to read on most races and it's completely unnecesary. --Andromeda15:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) It can be read, but it's hard. 2) My monitor does not need tweaking, but perhaps yours do. 3) Not everybody that visits Wikipedia has a 20/20 vision. Black text on a dark red background is hard to read. And do not mess with the colours more, please. It took us long enough to reach a consensus. --Andromeda15:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't, but perhaps you do. That template is the product of the SG project and we had many discussions about it. Use the talk page there to suggest changes.--Andromeda15:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't. It was an edit, not a revert. So was 17:14 and 17:15. Didn't you notice I made an error? I had to fix it. So it was an edit, not a revert. --Andromeda15:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last one is an edit. I edited the page manually, I did not use the revert feature. And once you stop having arguments, you start with threats? How adult of you. --Andromeda15:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what would that be? Agree with you? I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your changes. I'm willing to discuss them in the project and perhaps we can find a better solution for all parts involved. But I cannot agree with you just because you threaten to report me. I don't get reported and you get what you wanted. I'm sorry, but that's blackmail. If you want to discuss it, I'm open for it. Yes, I made and error and I know it, but I'm not open to blackmail. If I'm blocked for 24 hours, I'll accept it. --Andromeda15:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to express an opinion in my recent RfA. I appreciate all the feedback from my fellow editors. One of the rationals you gave for your opinion was per Tony.. If you have the time I would appreciate some suggestions for specific actions I could take to remedy the problems identified by Tony Sidaway. If not, no problem; I still appreciate the feedback. Eluchil40419:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinions in my RfA. Ultimately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your honest opinion was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here! Cheers! - CheNuevara17:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A car might indeed weigh 2 tons, or even 2 tonnes. But the Prometheus is supposed to mass 2.95 million tonnes, which is six times as much as the largest supertanker even constructed, and nearly thirty times as much as the USS Reagan, which has a crew of 5,600. I'm perfectly willing to accept that it's the correct mass for the ship (hyperdrive engines might be made of neutroneum for all I know), but a citation would be nice. Deadlock15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support on my RFA. The final vote count was (61/9/3), so I am now an administrator. Feel free to let me know how I'm doing at any point in time or if you need anything. Once again, thank you. Wickethewok15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Just to let you know that it is a major part of wikipedia etiquette not to remove the CFD tag (or similar tags) until the discussion has finished. An administrator will remove it should the category be kept. The JPS13:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I don't know if you've noticed the amount of vandalism the Phil Redmond article is receiving at the moment by an obviously disgruntled ex-employee. Keep an eye on the article for the rant.
As far as the category is concerned: well, I'm warming to it, now that more articles are going into it...
In line with WP:FICTION, characters should usually be included on the series page unless it gets excessively large, in which case major characters only should be given their own pages.
I changed several character pages to redirects (in preference to recommending them for deletion - see point 4 on WP:FICTION) where these were minor characters or there was less information on that page than in the main Hollyoaks article. These were barely long enough to quality as stubs (almost substubs).
Leaving the links in place would have created Wikipedia:Double redirects and would not have served readers. In the unlikely event that the main article becomes so large and these characters sufficiently major that they have full articles of their own, I would be happy to relink to them. --Whouk (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do watch Hollyoaks, yes. Even if you want to treat them as major characters, though, WP:FICTION still recommends including them in the main article. I've joined the discussion on Talk:Hollyoaks which is probably the best place to try to find consensus. --Whouk (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo00:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matthew,
There's no need to be uncivil. I removed the television schedule information because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's not about promotion, it's about what's appropriate for an encyclopedia. Comparisons to a paper encyclopedia are imperfect, but in this case are appropriate: you wouldn't look in the Encyclopedia Britannica for television schedules, right? Read WP:NOT for more information. Let me know if there are any other questions I can answer for you. --Fang Aili20:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia practice is to incorporate all varieties of English, using whichever is most appropriate within the context of a topic. (The Tony Blair article is written in British English, while the George W. Bush article is written in American English.) When no obvious choice exists, we stick with whichever variety the original post-stub author used (unless there's a good reason not to).
You seem to be forgeting that this is the ENGLISH encyclopaedia, i dont see a place saying American ENGLISH, The english are from england we speak english and are english our language is english so english is english.--Matthew Fenton17:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term "English" does not strictly refer to people and things from England. The English language is widely spoken in many countries other than England, and American English is no less a form of English than yours is.
No, this isn't an American English website (despite the fact that it was founded by Americans, which is why it isn't called "Wikipaedia"), nor is it a British English website. No variety of English is the "correct" one.
"No variety of English is the "correct" one." Exactly. But, the majority (or at least plurality) of our readers/contributors are probably American. Sir Elderberry03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WINDOWS LIVE MESSENGER
This is with respect to the Windows Live Messenger screenshot. I hreverted the picture again but reuploaded your file under a different filename and changed the link in the main page so that technically there is no problem and the page remains the same.
Koshyjohnuk13:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
English has entered into such wide use across the world and with so many people outside England speaking it, I doubt that the term "English" with regards to the language really has a connection to the country any more. There is not a correct version of English. In matters of style between dialects, regional differences should be considered first (ie, writing the United States article in British English would not be a good idea) and if this cannot help then the best thing to do is keep the article consistent with the current style. We can tell the intention generally, whatever happens. Sir Elderberry03:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"(Reverted edits by Koshyjohnuk to last version by MatthewFenton (these links do not belong in this article, they violate wlm's terms.. thus do not belong here)) "
This is the reason you left at the history page for reverting the Windows Live Messenger article. Since you made this assertion, the carefully went through the terms of use of WLM and I found that those links do not point to software that in any way violate those terms. Neither do they _violate_ the guidelines at Wikipedia.
I agree that the earlier version of the software may have done so. But the latest one clearly doesn't. Kindly comment on this.
This is just to inform you that LiveConnect does not in any way modify or change the Windows Live Messenger executable or any of its dependancies at any point of time. Even during the development of LiveConnect, WLM was NEVER disassembled, reverse engineered or decompiled.
LiveConnect makes use of a Windows API that allows you to apply transparency on any open window. All LiveConnect does is make sure that the window belongs to Windows Live Messenger and apply transparency to it. As for the other feature: Bosskey; all that does it hide Windows Live Messenger windows; unlike what most users think there are many states to a window which include: exists, *VISIBLE*, enabled, active, minimized, maximized.
The above two functions of LiveConnect can be applied to ANY running window (like Windows Explorer or Internet Explorer, anything!) at any time without touching the concerned executable or its dependancies. This is similar to what software like AlphaXP does.
Your argument may have been valid when I used to bundle the Protocol Downgrader with it but that is no longer a part of LiveConnect. If you have any other compelling arguments against including the link on Wikipedia kindly let me know.
[I cannot provide more LiveConnect programming details for obvious reasons; but you can verify what I just said by checking if there is any change in any of the WLM files by using a File Compare program; before and after installing LiveConnect.]
As per this:
(diff) (hist) . . m Enterprise (NX-01); 04:37 . . MatthewFenton (Talk | contribs) (It was NOT designated a USS Enterprise, and it was EARTH Starfleet)
I'd like you to know that it is not proper netiquette to type in all capital letters as that is often seen as shouting and is incivil.
There is no need to be incivil during editing disagreements. I urge you to keep a cool head while editing. Incivility is against Wikipedia policy, per WP:CIVIL.
After doing some research, I admit you are correct, the ship was never designated "USS". However, this is still no reason to shout at me. Please stop. — nathanrdotcom(Got something to say? Say it.)02:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for applying for VandalProof!(VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.1 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that unfortunately you do not meet our 250 mainspace edit limit, however please try again soon. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. - GlenTC(Stollery)15:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:WLM 80689.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Tim18:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you neglected to read the last section of the image template:
To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
You have not done this. A rationale is not simply adding a template. You must justify why you are uploading the image as fair use, see Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. You cannot simply add a template to the image and leave it as fair use.
You have also not specified a source for the image. If you got the image from a website, or if you made the image yourself, you must say so.
I was under the impression they were photon torpedoes. I mean, they're named like that, and they looked a lot like the photon torpedoes we saw in other Star Trek series. Aren't they photon torpedoes?
Fair enough for the torpedoes. There was a better page to link to anyway (here). But that still doesn't explain why you removed the questions, regarding why Starfleet was using technology inferior to what it had available and why the Romulans were using weapons 18 centuries old. -- Ritchy23:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matthew: they won't take any notice of your vote (US) unless you write at least "per [names of one or more other reviewers]". Tony09:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could easily return to the FAC room and add something to validate your comment; I'm keen that the nominators of the US article get off their arses and fix it, and that won't happen unless we apply pressure. Tony10:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sincere apologies go to anyone who has been offended by any of my articles. My aim is simply to notify people outside of Waterford of the kind of things we have going on here. My intentions are not to spam, apologies again if it comes across like that. I am a big fan of everything local. User:Spaingy
I have posted content from the Vitsoe.com website as we own this website and the content was created by us. The page I am creating on Vitsoe for wikipedia is using this text as it includes the information needed to discuss Vitsoe (the company) and the person Niels Wiese Vitsoe. The image is also owned by us, however I would like to retain copyright where possible.
If you can remove the text and leave a blank page, I will create a basic page with information about Niels Wiese Vitsoe and leave all information regarding Vitsoe Ltd. off to avoid sounding like we are advertising. My aim is to add information regarding the history of the designs he commisioned as opposed to the current production of the designs.
If we can remove the image also, and I will ensure we can give up copyright before re-submitting.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
However, let's face the facts. Both Galatica and Pegasus took nukes with little damage, while Basestars have been devasted by Battlestars' guns, which may or may not be nukes. Basestars most defintely lack the armor of battlestars, and with external pods for raiders, it is a logically conclusion that these pods indicate, as I stated, that they lack armor.
Considering the lack of any "real" stats on the ships, almost every statement on Battlestar Galatica episodes must involve educated deductions. My contributions are based on the only canton sources avaiable (ie. what we see in the episodes themselves) We are agreed that basestars cannot take as much punishment as Battlestars. We are also agreed that when the basestars were hit, they were not with nukes (considering the few that they have). If conventional weapons causes that much damage to basestars, we can deduce it lacks armor compared to battlestars. Thanks. Drew
I would like to question why you removed Messenger Plus! Live from Windows Live Messenger. I felt it was a necessary addition to the article, as the two items are closely related. I did not see it as "spam". - Mewtation10:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding edits made during September 11, 2006 (UTC) to Bindi Irwin
Actually, I replaced the fake commercial site with the official crocodilehunter.com pages. And did so again today.
www.crocodilehunter.com is the Irwin family's official site, including Bindi Sue Irwin's pages. www.bindiirwin.com and www.bindisueirwin.com are namejacked fakes. Hdw16:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the incorrect edits made by the bot; I'm just going to investigate to see what happened. --ais523 08:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not. I use dates to prefilter the AfDs to search (it only considers AfDs at least a week old), but then decats them only if they contain the string 'The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.' which is normally only found in closed AfDs. The thing that's confusing me is that some of the misdecatted AfDs didn't contain this string, and yet the bot is decatting them anyway; it's skipping other AfDs that don't need decatting, and as yet I have no idea why. If you understand JavaScript, see User:Bot523/monobook.js for the decatting logic (the bot is loaded up by an external program on each AfD in turn). --ais523 08:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
em..er.. if you have a moment - could you take a look at my userpage - the barnstar is all squashed and it would better if those four boxes were together. Any help would be much apperciate.
Hi, Matthew. I want to ask for your opinion about something before I go embarrassing myself at the Prison Break talk page. Do you think the "cast and characters" section would be better if the format was changed to that of Lost (TV series) since the list is getting reordered frequently and increasingly long. Another thing is about the general improvement of the entire Prison Break article. I am going to ask for suggestions at the Talk:Prison Break for sections to be improved and added like "critical response" or something. Your help would be appreciated, thanks. Ladida00:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, MatthewFenton, for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —this is messedrocker(talk)21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.
Hi MatthewFenton, thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which was closed as successful last Wednesday with a unanimous support of (47/0/0). I will do my best to help keep Wikipedia clean, green and vandal free. Once again, thank you! --Konstable14:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In recognition of excellence in editing Lost articles.
Hi, Matthew,
I haven't had the pleasure of giving out one of these for a while, but I noticed the fine work you've been doing in helping organise the Lost Wikiproject, as well as the List of Lost Episodes. I'm happy to see new editors with enthusiasm to improve the efforts of past editors (such as myself.) Much thanks! -- LeflymanTalk03:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA. Consensus to promote was reached, and I am now an administrator. I'll be using the tools cautiously at first, and everyone should feel welcome to peer over my shoulder and make sure I'm not doing anything foolish. --RobthTalk04:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and frankly thats the least of the three concerns I mentioned. I'm someone who thinks talkpage histories should be preserved (which is a key part of the GFDL, though I realize that talk pages don't need to adhere to that), specifically so that people can recall past interactions. I always try to recall past interactions with users when they go up for RFA, and the fact that I couldn't find any when I remembered making comments on your talk made me think that you had something to hide. Its only because I am admin that I could find my edit in the history of that page, and we cannot do diffs on deleted pages.
I'm not trying to be mean or discourage you. I'm trying to be as specific on my objections as I can so you know what I would have done differently were I in your place. :) Syrthiss15:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (50/3/0). If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free to write me. I hope I will live up to your trust. Michael01:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors!
What's New?
September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves!
Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there!
The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself!
The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it!
TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly!
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
I changed the photograph back as there may be a chance, however slight, of using the old cast photo again, much in the same way as Silent Witness. As such you should have uploaded the new cast photo under a different name, such as, say, Doctors 2006? (Pally0109:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I understand the need to keep uptodate but that the old cast photo could be used somewhere else in the article to show the genesis of the programme and probably wouldn't have been oprhaned. I understand the EastEnders article does the same. However I will bow to your better technical knowledge. (Pally0112:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I would be happy to collaborate on the article. I think that part of the problem with it is the lack of information that is available on the programme compared to the other soaps and the fact that it has less viewers. However the cast turnover is less which can lead to a greater depth to the characters. I'll have a think and let you know. (Pally0112:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
MatthewFenton... Thank you very much for your neutral comments in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your opinion, and will try ad take your comments to heart. Yours, Thε HaloΘ00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked specifically in #wikipedia whether infoboxes were meant to replace text, and they aren't. An article, a good one, should survive having all infoboxes deleted. Besides, science fiction is not the "primary genre" of Firefly, because it is as much a comedy as it is a science fiction show. Space, western, comedy. All of those are incredibly important to the nature of the show. If you are a fan, I'm sure that you were more impressed by the comedy than you were the space ships or the fact the story occurs on different planets. I'd break 3RR if I changed it, but I consider the inclusion of comedy-drama to be important. I will look for a compromise when I'm not so tired. (Perhaps a full sentence explanation, since I get the feeling that people are afraid of the string of wikilinks.) - BalthCat07:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ps: You might have been right to slash the Jericho trivia page, it's swelled to about 1/3 the article, and caused a bunch of anon-IPs to get all cranky because I didn't want to let them guess where Jericho was. - BalthCat07:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make clear that the wikipedia article has had many elements copied from the bswiki and not the other way around so i re-added the tag. --Mercifull08:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and send your draft synopsis to me at The4400 AT lauricella DOT net (having your own domain is nice!). It'll likely be late tonight (early morning for you) before I get to it, though. Travisl22:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we have a Wikipedia naming standard that puts articles at the singular (i.e. physician instead of physicians), that doesn't mean that people will always search that way. Of all the things people might be looking for when they type in "doctors", the most important and original meaning is clearly "physicians", and so that is the least surprising place for it to redirect to. The soap opera is, after all, just a soap opera. — sjorford++09:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpicks are meta information about the episode just like the Notes section. When does one include one, but can't the other? Are only some nitpicks allowed? Perhaps not filming errors, but only plot holes?
{{lame}} is now fully Speedy nominated. If the template gets taken off please feel at liberty to TfD it. This thing has to go. I'm going to bed and hope it will be gone by morning. (the template, not the bed) :) Fiddle Faddle22:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed you reverted one of my edits regarding the situation of the dablink of Lost (TV series)[11]. I would like to ask why (I don't understand your log). This change is important for accessibility reasons: the dablink should appear before any contents, including infoboxes. Best regards, --surueña14:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Note this is a policy (see Wikipedia:Accessibility), so I'll redo my changes in that article. Please, in the future adhere to this policy, it will help not only disabled readers and editors but all of us. Thanks -surueña14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't make the page harder to read, and has several advantages (and it's of paramount importance for blind users, or people accessing Wikipedia with a mobile phone browser, for example). You are right, it's not a policy but a guideline. Anyway, I don't see this article special, and therefore that part of the WP:MOS should be observed too. Thanks. --surueña15:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I always watch talk pages when I leave a message, so it's easier to have the discussion in only one place. Best regards.
Matthew, in response to your query on my talk page about my oppose reasons there are two points in it. The first is that I was moved to oppose you as I have very high standards in respect of civility. I do not presently recall when it was that we interacted and it was probably only briefly but I did check histories and contributions before I made that comment which was likely sparked by something minor that led me to look deeper. The point about Esperanza was a point about Esperanza and is that every time I found an editor to be incivil, including gross incivility and assumptions of bad faith, they were a member of that group. I alluded to the straw/camel's back analogy as I wanted to make the point about EA membership while retaining the impression that I did not feel that you were responsible for any great incivility, or assumptions of bad faith. I have not been around much on wikipedia lately and do not have a set of diffs to present to you but I will say that my previous impression is that you are a very valuable contributor and that is expressed best when you are considered in your discussion points and is expressed less ably when your response is swift. MLA14:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the picture is kind of blurry, and i'm still looking for a better one. but i still think that the picture in the infobox should present the city ship as an actual space ship, thus in space. especially since the picture of atlantis sitting on the ocean is not very "space ship-like". but fine, i won't change it for the time being. Maartentje10:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for warning me of an impending bloodbath, Fenton! I was expecting it anyway. I'll keep the nomination up, regardless. If I don't succeed (which I know I won't), I'll at least have a better understanding of what I need to do. Thanks again! -- P.B. Pilhet/Talk23:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 52/6/1 (~90%). It was an interesting process which gave me a chance to learn a bit about myself and about the community. My intention now is to slowly ease into using those additional buttons on my page. No use being over eager and mucking up the works. The support of all those who went over my record and/or rallied to my defense after the big oppose vote was instumental to the success of this review. Again, thank you! --StuffOfInterest11:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matthew, I reverted an anon who made wholesale replacement of SF with "science fiction" as well as a minor formatting error. I annotated my revert, citing the current discussion on this topic on the Talk page, so I wonder if you think my initial revert was incorrect. I was really just trying to suggest that that anon come and join the discussion which does not appear to have reached any consensus against "SF", and which possibly seems to be leaning in the opposite way, ie there are good stylistic reasons to use "SF" on occasion. Let me know what you think. Thanks heaps. Leeborkman07:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, okay, I see that you have voiced your concerns about the use of "SF" on the talk page. Actually, I would happily go with that alternative article title you mentioned... "Science Fiction (SF)", but there are many other ramifications when retitling an article. Anyway, as I have said, I consider "SF" to be a standard and synonym for "Science fiction" that could and should be used to make the text less clunky. Do you think that the discussion on the Talk page is approaching any kind of useful consensus, or can you see any way of ever reaching an acceptable compromise? What do you reckon? Thanks. Leeborkman07:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, Matthew. I really don't assume that the reader is familiar with the subject's abbreviations, which is why I explained the abbreviation in the opening sentence of the article. Is that not sufficient to put the reader at ease? Leeborkman07:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't agree with your sentiment that abbreviations necessarily cause "hell". An abbreviation, properly used, makes for easier reading, in exactly the same way that properly used pronouns do. But I guess we are not likely to ever agree on that one ;-) Leeborkman07:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a strange argumnet you raise when you say that "SF" could mean anything outside the field of Science Fiction. Well yes, it could, but I'm not sure why you think that that is an argument against using the abbreviation. It's simply an argument for using the abbreviation carefully and properly, ie when the context makes it clear which possible meaning of "SF" is being, and when the use of the abbreviation makes the text flow better. once again, I believ that pronouns are the crucial analogy: the word "he" could mean anybody when you remove it from its context, but that certainly doesn't mean that this pronoun should never be used. See ya. Leeborkman07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there is anyone arguing for "sci-fi" as a synonym. We have a couple of current professional practitioners, as writers and critics, who agree that SF is in fact now a universal synonym for "science fiction" (assuming the relevant context, eg we are not talking about great cities of California), while "sci-fi" is not. Anyways... I've got to run. Good to talk with you. Leeborkman07:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it failing any of the rules that you listed. Many other articles on TV series use the logo as their image rather then a picture of the cast. Most of them are older shows as well. I don't care one or the other if it is up there. I just thought it would make the page look nicer, but I think your objections to having it up are invalid. --Pinkkeith19:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to clarify my actions regarding the removal of rumors about Season Four from The O.C. wiki, since you seem to be the head honcho over there for keeping everything legit. The Daily Mirror (where the "info" came from) is a notorious UK tabloid/newspaper -- specifically notorious for (surprise, surprise) its lack of foundation for many of the claims it makes. I honestly couldn't come up with a better way of including the rumors without basically lambasting the Mirror on the wikipage itself, and since the source is less-than-solid, chose to remove the unsubstantiated claims altogether. If there's some way you can think of to include the info from the Mirror's article, please do -- but until it can be made clear that the info is probably total bunk, I think it's a waste of valuable wikispace to include it and mess with peoples' heads. Hope this finds you well!
P.S. I happened to see that you were removing the constant shameless plugs by the guy on the Heroes wiki (noticed the other day, but didn't add two and two together); just for the record, you're totally right to be stopping that kind of ridiculousness, and I was glad you were doing it.
Peace.
JasonDUIUC@gmail.com, if you want to reach me.
Thanks for the quick response, I actually went ahead and made the change and just a condensed comment about the caveat and sourcing in the remarks (for all to see, not just you and me). Yeah, I don't necessarily DISLIKE the Mirror, it's just that using it as an official source of info would be tantamount to saying that Tom Cruise is really an alien (similar-quality tabloid headline I saw recently). In other words, mostly it's good for a laugh and maybe a few kernels of real information or editorial commentary, but totally lacking in source-level integrity.
Yeah... [[BattlestarWiki:xyz]]. I got it added to the list in the new version of Mediawiki a while back. It just became active with the 1.8 series. Shane(talk/contrib)07:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have conformed to NPOV policy; you do not understand the policy. Please read up on it.
I have conformed to the Weasel words policy; you do not understand the policy. Please read up on it.
You are in repeated violation of the deletion policy.
I have provided the sources you asked for; you have refused to view them, and asked "Why would I want to click these?"
I can fix your vandalism as fast as you can create it, so why don't you save all of us some time by editting the new section to make it conform to your desires a single time, instead of deleting it 400 times?
Certainly here's the source. [12]. This is from the official ABC press release site. I will also change the photos to (tv-copyright) as you asked. Sfufan200521:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, I see you're a Lost fan. I'm asking for support for my proposals on the linking of Lost fan sites. They are very brief and easy to understand. Please weigh in there if you've got a second. Thanks, --Loqi T.03:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The very next time you erase a comment from a page, I will contact an administrator. Charlesknight's words also insult wikipedia and it is the job of a good wikipedian to get rid of them. Your behavior is unacceptable. As I told you before, I don't care what relationship you have with the user. Hungrygirl13:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MatthewFenton! Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 75/0/1! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Feel free to send me a message if you need any assistance. :)
Please don't remove a deletion request. That is considered vandalism. 25,000 on Alexa refers to the whole of wikia.com not its subdomain.
Thirdly, the writers of LOST contributing to Lostpedia is not considered grounds for an article, so why should Memory Alpha be any different? --90.192.92.7722:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, I'd like your opinion on something. I saw that someone in the adminship discussion had expressed a concern about my mother's article. I understand the concern, but in reality, I haven't made a single edit to that article. Do you think I should reply with that information, or just let it go under a "He has a right to his opinion"? --Elonka22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind - I replaced your screencap with one from just a few frames earlier (and edited out the "Global" station id). I thought that the expression on FutureHiro's looked a bit odd in context and the serious look suited the mood better. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Fenton (I'll call you Matt), on behalf of Lostpedia I would like to apologize for the confusion of people calling you a "vandal." We are sorry for the ban you received, but the reason you were banned was not listening to SySops, no matter how mush they told you to stop. Whoever uploads images has the option to credit himself or not, and they certainly dont need others doing it for them. I beleive an apology on your part will get you back on Lostpedia. If you wish to return. Namaste and good luck --Iron Chef23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (User:Onelastword) on Lostpedia.[reply]
P.S: It worked for me.
and i'd like to apologise on behalf of... erm... me, for iron chef having the tenacity to apologise on behalf of a website that nobody has the authority to apologise for in general. also, you might want to see the discussion raised at the policy village pump or indeed Jimbo Wales' LOST wikia talk page. (rereading this, if it comes across in tone as anyway hostile, it's not. iron chef's post just irked me somewhat) --Kaini04:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "Would a check user be in order to establish if there are any "sleeper" accounts in waiting?"
I agree this would be useful but I'm not sure if this is actually possible. I know for sure I can't do it. :( --Yamla16:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed unanimously with a final tally of 38/0/0. I appreciate your trust, and will do my best to uphold it. Don't hesitate to let me know if you ever need anything. — TKD::Talk05:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Helen Keller, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Martinp2312:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for showing me this. As you may have seen from the edit summary, this warning was posted with VP2, and I have no idea whatsoever why it went to you. I apologise, and I will report the error on IRC -- Martinp2313:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't quite understand your message, but, yes, your apology is accepted. Thank you for reading up on wikipedia norms. Tjic 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure where to put this but how can quotes not belong in the quotes/trivia portion of an episode page? that doesn't make any sense. I mean sure maybe I need to cut down as many as I used but you might as well call it the trivia section if there isn't suppoes to be any quotes.
I got MSN Messenger going, but I'm not sure how to use matthew@derwafflehaus. Shouldn't it be at msn.com or something? I haven't IM'd in a few years. - Peregrinefisher20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a good reason *not* to list references at the very bottom? It makes a good deal of sense to place them there, as one would when crafting an essay. I didn't mean to do that twice to the heroes page, I didn't see your revert, sorry. --DJ Chair21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use vandalism templates in content disputes. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not. But you might want to refer to WP:DR. In your particular case you might get some support due to the history of the other party scraping pictures of Google and uploading them with incomplete/wrong licencing info. Agathoclea22:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite honestly, did you need to ask this user if his request for adminship was a AFD? From someone who makes typos occasionaly, I can see someone typing in AFD instead of RFA. If you're question was in good faith, I apologize, but that kind of pointing isn't really needed. semper fi — Moe01:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. I do however very much appreciate your comments, and found them very encouraging. Please rest assured that I am still very much in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Of course, you are right. A free image could not reasonably be created for a fictional character. It's theoretically possible but that's pedantic and stupid. When I added that tag, I was thinking only of the actor. I'll remove the image from the actor's page and we are good to go. Thank you for your patience. --Yamla20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, I am renaming the Jericho episode pages to use the format "Episode Name (Jericho)" instead of "Episode Name (Jericho Episode)." This is actually one of the requested changes on Talk:Jericho_(TV_series), and is according to the standards stated on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television_episodes under "Structure of an episode article."
That's just it, though... the talk pages for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television_episodes and Jericho (TV series) reflect no controversy about the naming conventions; if you disagree with them, you should bring them up there so those trying to improve Wikipedia can see that the topic is being debated. Your reversions are the only signs of anyone disagreeing with this convention that I have seen. --TobyRush19:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The {{TelevisionWikiProject}} infobox at the top of the Talk page, as well as the request to rename the episode pages, indicate a consensus that the Jericho pages are aiming to follow those guidelines. I'm not saying I disagree with the format that you're advocating, but if everyone in a group agrees upon something but you, it remains a consensus until you voice your opinion... preferably before reverting someone who is trying to assist in maintaining consistency.
"The project you cite is something small with a few paticpants, a discussion among them does not equate to a project consensus" -- it does if you don't speak up. I've brought this up on Talk:Jericho_(TV_series). Let's move our discussion there so others can contribute. --TobyRush20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata02:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Lost102.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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. Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.)19:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you're mad at me for supporting a delete of those episodes, and removing a policy violating recommendation from the WikiProject, does not give you the right to make false accusations. The policy that Wikipedia is not an episode guide overrides a goal that you alone added to a WikiProject. That which violates policy and does not have a consensus to back it up does not need a consensus to change it. I have done nothing wrong and I find it highly absurd (and ironic) that you are finding my edits rude. You disagree with me on some stuff, and that's ok. Don't behave like this just because of some disagreements, trying to take such an absurd low blow. -- Ned Scott08:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's typical Matthew Fenton tactics. Wantonly purge and censor, then hide behind a Wikirule and pretend he's innocent. *That* is what's absurd. 66.90.151.11422:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, strangely (and Matthew can check my maths) - you have about 10 edits the last I checked - and not a single one is to an article... --Charlesknight18:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but a link to a (non-commercial) podcast who's sole purpose is to discuss "Battlestar Galactica" is completely appropriate for the "External Links" section of the BSG TV show page.
Deleting it simply because it was added by the Podcast producer is pretty silly. If it would make you feel better, I can have one of my listeners edit the page.
I'm offended both at your characterization of my link as "spam" and your assertion that I need to "learn more about Wikipedia" (I've been editing here longer than you have).
Why have you not deleted the following external links?:
* BattlestarWiki
A "fan" site
* Battlestar Galactica at Scifipedia
Another "fan" site
* Official Battlestar Galactica: CCG Website
A commercial-link to a manufacturer's site selling a BSG-related product
Your contention that my link is "non relevant to the article" is ridiculous. How is a link to a podcast who's sole subject is the subject of the article "non relevant to the article?" Alight15:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, enough is enough. The recent edits you've made on the pages for unaired episodes were wanton and unnecessary. You deleted them without taking note of the nature of the subject material, and by all accounts you did so only because *I* posted the information.
Again, enough is enough. It's become very obvious that you're trying to "own" the Jericho pages like you've done over on the Lost ones. I could care less what you do to the Lost pages, as I've AbZero interest in that series. But what you're doing is *causing* the disruption of Wikipedia that your so-called rules prohibit.
Your comments would have more weight if you weren't using an anonymous account. Might I suggest creating a username, and providing diffs of your concerns? --Elonka01:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than playing the "alias" card, how about just scanning Matthew's talk page archive before you blindly defend him? The sheer number of complaints about his wanton editing should point out to you just how in the wrong he is. 66.90.151.11402:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but can you please point me to where it indicates you are the owner of the BSG page and the sole arbiter of what constitutes spam?
I'm going to end this edit war at this time, because your maturity level precludes me from carrying on a civil discourse with you on this matter. I hope you are happy with the many "friends" you seem to have made on Wikipedia with your antics. Live and be well. Alight14:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed it messed up some articles and I was trying to figure out how to fix it. Sometimes it looks better if it's centered (like at the bottom of a short article), and sometimes better on the right. I wonder if <center> would override the template's align=right. --Fang Ailitalk20:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I saw that here you used and emoticon, using {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} - this sort of spurred me into creating a single template to do all sorts of emoticons, both with :) forms, :-) and =) (with all the other feelings too). You can see it at {{emot}} - just thought I'd let you know, if you're interested :P Martinp2316:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, could you explain what problem you find with Image:2006 census Australia.png, which you cited in your opposition to MichaelBillington's RfA? I can't figure out what you see wrong with it, so it might be a good idea to clarify your comment (although it's probably just me being stupid and not seeing something ). Thanks. --Slowking Man20:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please try reading WP:WAF which details how articles about fiction should be written. The articles I tagged are all written in the In-universe style, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. 75.105.178.15017:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Glen Larsen, producer of Battlestar Galactica, attempted a revival in the late 1990s with a feature film project using Commander Cain and the Battlestar Pegasus."
and left the edit summary"Uncited and liekly fan cruft so exterminate." It took all of ten seconds for me to do a quick Google search and confirm the information. All I'm asking is that you take the time to check out plausible information, rather than just deleting it and leaving a sarcastic comment. --Ckatzchatspy09:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I seen the ship in the show so I wasn't sure how to handle it being in the list or not. If a fan made it, cool, but the source for it looked suspicious. I didn't want to argue with those anon users who want to keep putting it back. Cyberia2322:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I heard a rumor than an RPG for BSG is in the works - if anything, it might be a good sourcebook for behind the scenes like the Firefly RPG. Maybe they'll list all the ships of the fleet and then we'll know for sure. Some people may still consider an RPG non-canon though, but it's been accepted in the Firefly articles. Cyberia2322:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was thinking of merging Cloud 9 as well, I merged Astral Queen and the length of it's article was about the same. I dunno. I'll wait and see if Astral Queen causes a stir. If not, then maybe merge Cloud 9 too, seeing that she's been blown up an all. It may never be mentioned again. Cyberia2300:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While you may disagree with the headings change, undoing all of my edits was unnecessary -- your reversion included ridiculous misspellings, stylistic inconsistencies (armour? armor?) and other stuff. Please be more careful.
As for the headings: unless you're going to put some specific text under "Technological specifications", it is unnecessary and makes the outline of the article unneccessary "complicated", i.e. the article doesn't need subsubsubheaders when subsubheaders will do. Even those subsub headers seem pretty flimsy, what with a single sentence each; they should probably just be collapsed into an overall blurb on the shuttle. --EEMeltonIV13:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, nor do I see anything that specifies that they must be real-world ships. Doing a quick survey of various other franchises' articles in Wikipedia, you'll see that the general consensus seems to follow the notion of italicizing fake ships, too. FYI, the MOS sample text for writing about fiction italicizes a ship class name. --EEMeltonIV13:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have created a ridiculous strawman. Can you show me in a Trek article where a similar string of italicized ship names appears? Regardless: if that were the article, then, yes, they should be italicized per the MOS. If you think it's ugly, consider re-writing the sentence, since it's poorly written anyhow. But, to address your tangential strawman: check out Battle of Trafalgar and Battle of Midway. Back to the actual MOS point: please tell me where in the MOS it says not to italicize fictional ships' names. --EEMeltonIV13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are selectively winnowing in on a "pointer" for use of italics but ignoring the more specific heads up I previously mentioned: the MOS says ship titles should be italicized, and does not differentiate between fiction, nonfiction, first mention or subsequent mentions. It also points out that many other things should be italicized, like book titles. Is it your contention that books should only be italicized, what, the first time they're mentioned on their article pages, but not beyond that? Do foreign words get italicized only once per article, and otherwise are not? Your proposed alteration to the Star Trek project I think will just make the pages look inconsistent. A better idea, for Trek articles and all the others, is simply to avoid unnecessary repetition and to write tighter material. But, where a ship name (fictional or real, or a book, or a movie, or whatever) appears, it should be italicized. --EEMeltonIV
You changed tacks and suggested that the MOS bit about italicizing "ships" doesn't apply because the Trek articles are about *space*ships. Well, the vessels in those two articles have their names italicized. --EEMeltonIV14:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in having an IM conversation. Perhaps this other line from the MOS will help clarify: "Italics are mainly used to emphasize certain words. Italics for emphasis should be used sparingly." My emphasis added: yes, when used to emphasize a word, italics shouldn't be overdone. However, in those other areas -- book titles, (space)ship names, foreign words, etc. etc. -- they should consistently be italicized. --EEMeltonIV14:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "The issue is resolved thank you very much :)"
I can't find where you showed that it would be impossible to create a free image of this living person. Can you please point this out to me? --Yamla15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "Everything is impossible until done."
Sorry, that is not a sufficient grounds to claim an image is not replaceable and is not grounds for removing the replaceable tag. Please reread WP:FUC. --Yamla15:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided no evidence that a free equivalent could not be created. Given that this is a living person, a free equivalent could easily be created. An image of a living person only meets the first criteria if the person is in hiding or has changed markedly from an earlier picture and it is important to show the person as they appeared in the earlier picture. Such is not the case here. --Yamla16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "I've provided plenty of evidence to you before.. the only way you could "easily" get a picture is if you where to "stalk" the person.. that is not easy and is also agaisnt the law. Again.. read and heed to what i ahve bolded."
Oh come off it. This person is regularly in the public eye. Wikipedia is not permitted to use copyrighted non-free images solely to depict living people unless there are special circumstances. This was decided by Jimbo Wales and the Wikipedia Foundation. Claiming that you have to stalk a living person who is in the public eye to get a freely licensed photograph is simply false and will not fly here. Please refrain from removing this tag from any further images unless you provide reason to believe the person is dead or in hiding, or that otherwise it is not possible to create a free image of that person. --Yamla16:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "Can you provide eveidence otherwise? I've provided plenty showing its not so easy."
It makes no difference if it is easy or not. The criteria is whether or not it is possible. Given that a freely-licensed image of Kristen Bell "could be created that would adequately give the same information", it fails WP:FUC. --Yamla16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the policy, please propose a replacement policy. Until this is done and accepted, however, please refrain from removing any more replaceable tags from living people. --Yamla16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that the first criteria specifically states, "if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." Given that Kristen Bell is still alive, any images not freely licensed explicitly and clearly fail WP:FUC. --Yamla16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing the issue up on the Fair use discussion page. While I may disagree with your change, I do appreciate you discussing it in the appropriate forum. --Yamla16:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - "Wikipedia is not censored against something you one day dislike."
— MatthewFenton
.
I find it kind of offensive (and probably borderline violation of WP:AGF) for you to insinuate that I have anything against the articles I nominated for deleteion. It has nothing to do with my "like" or "dislike" of a list of TV channels or stations -- I have no feelings either way about such a trivial subject, and I don't let personal feelings cloud wikijudgement. I simply applied an appropriate policy per wikipedia norm. Thanks! /Blaxthos18:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I like it. Not a lot of content, but I guess you don't need to have that much. :)
And yeah, I've been blocking a lot of people on MSN for the time being because I have massive loads of term papers and studying to do. Sorry about that. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?!05:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was moving stuff from another page. I didn't like the material, but thought it was better here than there. You were right to remove it and I only reverted it to make it clear what I had done. I was hsppy you reverted it again, and I'm not going to revert it because what I wanted to do was done. Sorry if you thought I was starting a revert war over it.
Yeah, I know that content is kept in history, but it's hidden. I moved it in case the original creator lost track/didn't visit for a while. I wouldn't have deleted it from the original page for the reasons you did (although I agree they were perfectly valid reasons and I'm glad you did.) I did, however, in the move take out a chuck that really was pointless (noting a goof in terminology).
Have you checked out the Comparisons page? I'm not completely sure about it. Something doesn't seem right... I just get the feeling it shouldn't be there or it should be better edited... or something. What do you think?
I understand your thinking and was just having similar thoughts. The mini-series needs to be an "episode", but it seems to be more of a defacto "universe" page. It will probably take quite a bit of work an some fighting.
Please keep a closer eye out for various changes when wholly reverting an article. In hindsight, you were right that where I moved the SC-4 picture uglified things. However, in rv. to a wholly different version of the article, you also restored a crappy not-English sentence. Yes, pot kettle black considering my "correction" to the DS9 article. Still, thought it worthwhile to point it out. --EEMeltonIV01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you removed this? That a further ship class has been depicted in the series by a reuse of the Miranda-class model seems entirely appropriate content for the article about the Miranda-class model. The sentence I added neither says nor implies that the Bozeman was identified as a Miranda class ship: it explicitly says it was identified as a Soyuz class. Is real-world information inappropriate on articles about fiction? Morwen - Talk08:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check memory alpha, the background section "It was originally hoped that a new design could be developed for the Soyuz-class, but practical considerations dictated the reworking of the existing USS Reliant model originally built for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The modifications were designed by Greg Jein and Michael Okuda.". I am sure that with not too much effort this story can be sourced exactly within Okuda's reference materials.
Plenty of in-universe sources note the close similarity in the ship designs as well, though! Frankly, the variance between the Reliant and the Soyuz isn't much bigger than the variant within the Reliant class, and I wouldn't be sure all those ships have been identified in dialog as Reliant class anyhow. startrek.com notes link in-universe. I gather from internetting that Sternbach wrote an article mentioning the link in Star Trek Magazine at some point. The factoid about the model re-use must come from the Chronology or Encyclopedia or somesuch. Morwen - Talk08:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I have gone out and purchased a copy of the Encyclopedia. It both backs up the Okuda/Jein claim in the italicised backstage part, and also in the the main part of the entry it calls it a "variant on the Miranda-class starship". It also includes a crossreference to the Soyuz entry in the Miranda entry. Is this good enough? Morwen - Talk13:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing this template - it is appropriate, useful, and most definitely not speculative. If you have a problem, please DISCUSS it first on the talk page. --Ckatzchatspy09:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Kristen_bell.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
no offense, but why do you revert almost all my recent edits the last few weeks? the Adria article is a mess, whether you like to admit it or not... i would even consider it impressive if you had even read the latest version i edited... Maartentje22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what looks messy or not is really subjective, just like "losing the flow". and if the article was perfect as it is, why should it be rewritted according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate? and off course i restructured it, the newer version is alsmost twice as long, off course it should be a little restructured... Maartentje22:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i always thought wikipedia users tried to encourage people to contribute instead of insulting others because they make some typos... Maartentje22:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Hrm. Tricky, they're being pretty disruptive, but they've only had one warning before I stepped in. I have a hunch this'll end up leading to a block, but I'll see if I can talk them out of it. They seem to have stopped for now, which is good, but if they keep up and I don't notice, feel free to grab me. Luna Santin19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, MatthewFenton, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd19:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will meet you halfway and restore ancillary references/apparances to the neater <ref> tag format. However, initial and first appearances should be explicated in the text to establish notability/significance. Please give me a few minutes to work through and combine your version with my edits and take a gander. I'll leave a note here.
As a side note, I'll again point out that your reverts also undid other worthwhile tightening of language, spelling corrections, and so on. --EEMeltonIV20:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew: I'm going to put aside the objectionable, insulting manner in which you chose to leave a message on my talk page for now. I think you should really look carefully at your actions on Wikipedia, and how they affect other editors. I am certainly not alone in taking issue with the manner in which you conduct yourself. With regards to Omicom's imageimage that you removed from Hero (Battlestar Galactica), you could have avoided this whole exchange if you had just added a summary as to WHY you were removing it. Otherwise, it gives the appearance in the edit history that you were trying to hide something. --Ckatzchatspy21:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:WOTV Xmas e e9dccc5a8b3a5c9a5fe3ecc865cb9a19.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.)15:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Medium.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.)15:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:NaShawn Kearse as Caleb Applewhite.png
Thanks for uploading Image:NaShawn Kearse as Caleb Applewhite.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.)15:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not review your images in relatiation, it is simply another user to review. Have a look at my contributions and you will see I have been reviewing and nominating a lot of images for a lot of users. I will freely admit that reviewing your images now is because of your message, but I have been reviewing the images of users who leave me messages on my talk page. It is but one of the resources I use to find new images to review. Have a look at my user page project section, you will see I have quite a number of searches on the go currently. My talk page is simply one of the avenues. I am sorry you felt I was targeting you.--Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.)16:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have been noticing you sending me messages over and over again about me removing the screenshots of the episode list of The Nine. Well, if you think I am trying to do vandalism here, I am only removing the screenshots because it is unnecessary for this article to have screenshots for each episode because no one cares about seeing pictures of an episode, so could you please stop sending me messages everytime I make an edit to the Episode list of The Nine, thanks.--Jimmysal20:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument that to create a replaceable free image of a living person requires that we stalk that person holds no water. Your proposal to change WP:FUC was soundly defeated. WP:FUC specifically states, "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." If I catch you doing this again, I will block you for trolling. If you don't like the policy, work again to change the policy. This is not grounds to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image, however, and this is your last warning. --Yamla23:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "Your making threats now because you cannot get your own way? and making out of process deletions? - The only reason I can see why you have deleted it is to cover up the dispute to keep it which I provided with detail. You may also like to read WP:CIVIL."
Let me reiterate. WP:FUC says, "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." In the case of Kristen Bell, the subject of the photograph still exists as she is a living person. Your claim that obtaining one would require stalking her is bogus and you are well aware that this is not Wikipedia's interpretation of the policy. If you refuse to adhere to WP:FUC, you will be blocked. You may have your own unique interpretation of WP:FUC or you may disagree with WP:FUC but I am here to tell you that non-freely-licensed images of living people are not permitted except in extreme circumstances (such as the person being in hiding). Your interpretation of the policy is not relevant. I have explained this to you over and over again. You have tried to have the policy changed but failed. It is my job to hold you to the policy. If you are unwilling to live by Wikipedia's policies, you will be blocked. --Yamla23:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "Could - In otherwords possibly.. a might be able to.. a try your best.. could != must."
You are misreading this. What it is asking you to do is to check to see if the subject of the photograph still exists. If the subject still exists then a freely-licensed photograph could be taken. That is, the assumption is that it is possible to take a freely-licensed photograph. The sentence is stating that the assumption is for living people, it is possible to take a freely-licensed photograph. It is not trying to state that you should do your best to take a freely-licensed image but otherwise a fair-use image is acceptable. You may disagree with this, but that is what you will be held to regarding WP:FUC. --Yamla23:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "That is your interpretation of the FUC."
Yes, and as an administrator, it is my responsibility to block you if you violate this policy. You are well aware that my interpretation is not unique. WP:FUC is written so as to prohibit non-freely-licensed images from being used to depict living people. You know this because you specifically tried to change it. That's all I have to say on this topic. If you continue to violate WP:FUC, I will block you. --Yamla23:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MatthewFenton: Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, it was clear that no consensus was going to be reached, and I have withdrawn the request at a final tally of 31/17/5. Regardless, I really appreciate your confidence in me. Despite the failure, rest assured that I will continue to edit Wikipedia as before. If all goes well, I think that I will re-apply in January or February. - Mike | Talk04:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was just wondering what more you feel needs to be done in order to reach a consensus on the "height" field in the Template:Infobox actor. I notice that you haven't said very much during any of the long discussion that has been taking place, so I'd be interested to know how you would like to try to work towards consensus. Obviously I see that you want to keep the field, but I would like to discuss further the issue of consensus and what you currently believe is lacking. Could you also clarify what you mean by the "for now at least" comment on your recent edit where you indicated you wanted to keep the field. Thanks Rossrs07:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there's anything I can clear up for you so that you're more than a "Considering" member of the Battlestar Galactica Wikiproject, please don't hesitate to leave a message. --BlueSquadronRaven21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Mommy's Bosses (The 4400 episode). Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. NCursework22:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew - just a reminder to err on the side of caution when you revert. While your point was valid with regards to the production numbers, it would have been better to check over the entire edit before undoing it. In this particular case, four other valid edits were also removed at the same time. I've restored the material, and removed what I'm presuming you intended to take out - the production number. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy08:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poease don0t reve tag!
The article has been vanalized several times. Edit war occured, let the tag and contact an adminstrator, the article must be protected! Please--Giovanni Giove13:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say i'm really quite confused. There is no user existing by the name "Shakla", it's got nothing to do with my username Yaksha, and the use of it on the wikiproject stargate suggests it was very intentional.
"What" <<<i'm asking you what the word "Shakla" means and why you are calling me that. Or where you not referring to me at all in those two examples i pointed out? (the two quotes are what you said). --`/aksha11:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, i'm not trying to pick a fight over this. I'm honestly confused, that's all. Last time i checked, my signiture does state my name. It says "Yaksha", with the "Y" written in leet. So i have no idea how you could have gotten "Shakla" from it.
I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, MatthewFenton, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong :P! Thanks,Martinp2314:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "Hello. Please do not abuse the [rollback] button. Furthermore the image you removed is allowed per the FUC as it is providing critical commentary within a body of text, is unrepeatable, and an un-free picture of Jeri Ryan as Seven of Nine would be unobtainable. I advise you to self revert."
You said: "Yes. I had to figure that out however.. and would of never had I not seen your contribs.. this is why you don't [rollback] good faith edits.. if you leave a summary i'd known this and we could avoid the confusion :-)"
I did inform the uploading editor about the multiple violations on that image. As a serious and honest question, do you believe it is inappropriate to use administrator rollback to revert violations of Wikipedia policy such as the addition of this image? Please don't take offense at my question, I'm not trying to get a rise out of you. You subsequently fixed the problem with the image, even though you did not upload it. I ask you this because my understanding is that it is reasonable to use rollback to enforce violations of policy, particularly when combined with notifications of the violation. In this case, though, my notification was only to the editor who uploaded the image. --Yamla18:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I'd like to know if you would have been satisfied had I left a message on this page (perhaps a templated message) explaining why your change was reverted. That is, in your opinion, is it reasonable to use rollback in such a circumstance? --Yamla18:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(You left some comments, and then I replied with:) It was still your responsibility to ensure that the image had a detailed fair-use rationale for that particular article. Fair-use rationales which attempt to justify the use of the image on all Wikipedia articles are not valid (point #10 on WP:FUC, rationale must indicate the name of the article the rationale is for). I understand your concern, though, and frankly I'm a little surprised at myself that I didn't give you a note as to why the image was removed. Thank you for taking the time to clearly spell out your concerns, I appreciate it. I will try not to make this mistake again. --Yamla19:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, I take it you live in England - if so, I was wondering if you're actually able to watch the 3rd season of BSG as I thought it wasn't airing yet in the UK. Cyberia2320:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your signature. amongst many others, is being affected by my clear-up of {{·}} which you have included therein.
As it currently stands, your signature falls foul of WP:SIG in several ways:
your signature includes a template, which is supposed to be impossible: I can only assume that you have managed to bypass the hard-wired restriction by transcluding from another template, because the system automatically SUBSTitutes templates in signature.
your signature includes an external link. You will no doubt point out that it is a link to the Toolserver: the guideline makes no distinction. If you wish to propose some sort of alteration to the guideline, please feel free.
In light of the above, I am requesting that you radically prune your signature: the reduced version to which I am changing it has been found to be perfectly adequate in similar circumstances. Indeed, the minimal default signature—which is simply a link to your user-page—is perfectly acceptable.
At the very least, I would advise adjusting it to avoid the problems I list above.
Until you at least remove {{·}}, your contributions will continue to appear in my AWB list and I will continue to fix them.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk16:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make up your mind. You went through all three votes already lol. Also, please clean up your votes, because it appears quite confusing to the unsuspecting reader. Nishkid6422:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not voting, then can you just add your comments to the Discussion section and remove all the strikethrough's? By the way, admins have lives, if you haven't noticed. Nishkid6422:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew: Just so you know, I've moved the disambiguation template back to the top of Jericho (TV series). Editors often move that template for esthetic purposes, so that infoboxes line up with the top of the page. However, Wikipedia guidelines caution against doing so, as it creates problems for people who use screen readers, which get messed up by the code in the infobox templates. --Ckatzchatspy20:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but "comparisons against" are NOT actually other words for "fan speculation suggests". Just load up the image that the reference links to, and get out a ruler, and do the math. Unless you don't believe that that size comparison image was actually produced by Zoic. *shrugs* Sullivan.t.j14:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is watching "33", observing that six engines are alight, and then adding to the Galactica's article that she has six sublight engines. It's a calculation, done by a fan! How is stating the figure, with appropriate references, out of line? Zoic, remember, aren't fans: the attributes that they say Galactica has, and can be observed to have, it has. Same goes for figures publicised by RDM, and we have those in Wikipedia articles. Sullivan.t.j14:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image does not need to have a scale on it for us to be able to compare the length of the Nimitz class aircraft carrier (as shown, with a known real-world length) to the length of the Galactica. No units required, just the ability to multiply/divide. Granted, we will not get an exact answer, but at least one that is accurate to within 100m or so, which I think is information that readers might like to have. Or will you only settle for exact figures? Sullivan.t.j15:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but "comparisons against" are NOT actually other words for "fan speculation suggests". Just load up the image that the reference links to, and get out a ruler, and do the math. Unless you don't believe that that size comparison image was actually produced by Zoic. *shrugs* Sullivan.t.j14:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is watching "33", observing that six engines are alight, and then adding to the Galactica's article that she has six sublight engines. It's a calculation, done by a fan! How is stating the figure, with appropriate references, out of line? Zoic, remember, aren't fans: the attributes that they say Galactica has, and can be observed to have, it has. Same goes for figures publicised by RDM, and we have those in Wikipedia articles. Sullivan.t.j14:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image does not need to have a scale on it for us to be able to compare the length of the Nimitz class aircraft carrier (as shown, with a known real-world length) to the length of the Galactica. No units required, just the ability to multiply/divide. Granted, we will not get an exact answer, but at least one that is accurate to within 100m or so, which I think is information that readers might like to have. Or will you only settle for exact figures? Sullivan.t.j15:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, we have two possibilities. Either (a) the image may be taken as a Zoic publication, or (b), it can't. If (a), then we can extract an estimate for Galactica's length that is accurate to within 100m or so, which I contend is an estimate good enough to be of interest to our readers (if published with appropriate references). If (b), you're right, and the estimate we obtain shouldn't be published. I'm not twisting words: I'm trying to get to the core of your objection: it seems that it can't be the maths, so it must be the validity of the image itself. Sullivan.t.j15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are we actually looking at the same image? I see one with a Zoic logo, a side and top view of the Galactica and a side and top view of a Nimitz class carrier. Your comments seem to suggest that you haven't even looked at the image to which I linked, because you haven't yet answered my question: do you consider that Zoic image genuine or not? Sullivan.t.j15:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering the question. Now we're getting somewhere. Now, given that the image is genuine, why would it be inappropriate to add to the article something like the following? "Based on an image released by Zoic Studios (see [13]), the Galactica appears to be about four times the length of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier, i.e. around 1,250 metres." Seriously, if even properly referenced guesses in which the methodology of the guess is clear are to be removed from Wikipedia, we'd better start removing large swathes of literary criticism, historical opinion, and even scientific hypotheses and conclusions! I'm more than willing to comporomise to see useful approximate information put on site, when accompanied by appropriate disclaimers. Your attitude appears to be far more strict. Sullivan.t.j15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you reverted the nowiki tags. The reason they're used is to prevent the apostrophe from being italicized (which it shouldn't, since it's not part of the ship name). The wiki parser interprets three consecutive ' marks where one is unmatched as an apostrophe then the closing italics. The nowiki tags prevent this from happening. -- Fru1tbat15:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on your resolution/font size/whatever, you may not see a difference (on one of my PCs, for example, boldfacing doesn't show up on italicized text of a certain size, whereas on another PC it looks like it's supposed to), but it's definitely different, and the nowiki tags will make it display properly for other users. -- Fru1tbat16:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
really? in what episode did we see it? fine, the return part II, but please reference it, as most of us unascended beings haven't seen that ep yet... Maartentje21:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You stated, "I personally had a quick look at that page today and there was no boilerplate and there was a fair use rationale.. it appears you are now making out of process deletions with false deletion reasons?"
No. Rationales must be specific to the article it is being used in. This was not done for that image and so the image was deleted according to process as having been marked as missing a rationale for more than seven days. Please see WP:FUC. --Yamla15:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "It wasn't marked.. and you know as well as I even if it was it is a {{sofixit}} situation."
It was marked on October 18, 2006. If you wish, I will undelete it and you can provide a detailed fair-use rationale for each use. --Yamla15:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:3RR properly. My initial upload, as a replacement, doesn't count as a revert. If I revert one more time, yes, I am in violation, but I'm only up to three. Your first reversion to your original, however, does count as one, so you're up to three as well. If you revert my last reversion, you'll be four. But do feel free to report it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Matthew. I know that it hasn't been long since I started the RFM, but I was wondering whether you plan to agree to mediation or not. I only ask because I noticed that you edited the RFM page, but didn't indicate your agreement, which seems odd to me. No pressure or anything — I was just curious. You don't have a problem with formal mediation on this issue, do you? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for taking the time to rethink your stance. I hope I'll still have your support the next time around. KafzielTalk13:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew: We've talked about moving disambiguation templates from the top of pages before, but you asked me to provide you with the relevant Manual of Style reference. It's part of the Wikipedia accessibility guidelines (WP:WAI), and the specific section is here:
"Disambiguation links should be the first elements of the page, before any image or infobox. A text only browser or screen reader present the page sequentially, and otherwise the dablink will be read between the image and the lead section."
It's a common mistake, as many editors move the top-of-page templates for esthetic purposes. However, it creates problems for people who use screen readers. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy08:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey... seems we have some similar interests, at least as far as sci-fi goes... Jericho, Galactica - do you follow Heroes? Anyways, your tweaks to the Jericho episode list popped up - I made a minor tweak to the lead paragraph as the image was dropping into the table area, causing the table to resize. This left a big white space on the right, while leaving the "Specials" table at full width. Let me know if you've got a more elegant way to achieve the same result. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy09:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... is there a way to force the table to draw below the image, other than with line spacing? Otherwise, we'll still have problems on some display/browser combinations. --Ckatzchatspy09:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit overlap... my previous comment was written (or at least thought about) before your "100%" change, which seems to do the trick. I was referring to my "kludge", which wouldn't necessarily hold up under every browser/display combination. Thanks! --Ckatzchatspy09:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of sci-fi (but can you ever have too much?!? You're in the UK, aren't you? If so, what's up there sci-fi-wise? Aside from the venerable Dr. Who eps, I also recall stuff like Blake's 7 from years back, and the later Red Dwarf of course. Anything contemporary that doesn't make it across the pond? --Ckatzchatspy09:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check this out... The Tylium article has a bunch of scientific mumbo-jumbo added I have no idea where this guy Ylai got the info from. He said it was directly from the reimagined series,episode "1x10", and thats no episode I ever heard of. I don't recall anytime where Baltar scientifically discussed Tylium. Do you know what Ylai is talking about? Cyberia2321:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This person just can't learn to control his anger. The static IP belonging to this person has been blocked for 6 months. We gave him a second chance, and he failed yet again. We won't make the same mistake twice. Cheers, -- THLRCCD23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
look matt! im really pissed that u deleted the rachel bilson pictures out of her profile! u better fix that cuz it took me forever to put those pictures on there!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.227.50 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
matt.....do something! when i clicked on The O.C., someone changed the picture to some wrestling thingy! i noe u could change it so............CHANGE IT! please....ur the only person i noe! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adelyna (talk • contribs) 06:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
This message delivered: 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Umm... I do not recall any "Request for Mediation" I just asked a simple question of you on your talk page. Nothing formal, just a question. And you don't seem to want to answer me. -- DaveDorm07:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just voted to oppose the move of Clash of the Turtle Titans (TMNT 2003 Episode) → Clash of the Turtle Titans, yet you cited WP:TV-NC as your basis. But WP:TV-NC states clearly, For an article created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name. Per this, logic based on WP:TV-NC would lead one to support this particular move, since there are no other articles with the name, Clash of the Turtle Titans. Are you sure you did not intend to vote support? --Serge18:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice your removal of the disambiguation text from the top of Grey's Anatomy earlier today when I added the template just now. It's not on my watchlist, and I didn't think to check the history. I didn't want you to think I was unilaterally reversing your edit. I do think having it there is valid, though. Although the spellings are distinct for the name, many users are used to seeing it both ways interchangeably (since both spellings are used for the color), and I don't expect that all users who are looking for the name will know which spelling is the movie/book and which is the show. Having the dab text at the top of the article will result in less confusion. If it makes a difference, I can change the dab template to read "for other uses and spellings"... --Fru1tbat14:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki link is for Wikia, not Wikipedia, and you don't put "external links" in every section of your page. External links go at the end of the article. Bignole22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can take one rule over the other. It's more convient to link the title of the section, whether it is a header or not. If you claim it's "silly to put them at the bottom" that's being a little hypocritical about guidelines. If you want them removed from the name, then a link to Smallville Wikia, and TV.com's main Smallville page suffices as the external link. You can't choose one over the other just because it's "silly" to you to do it the appropriate way, after you just removed the original way because of "appropriate" matters. Bignole
How about the one that says "avoid linking to multiple pages within the same website"?? Wikipedia: External links#Important points to remember. That's as clear as that "avoid links in the header. If you are going to try and claim exception for that one then exception can be made for the header links. Bignole 22:32, 9 December 206 (UTC)
You are the one puting an "external links" section in every page and linking to each episode one two different websites. When I changed it so that TV.com and Wikia links to their main Smallville page, as per the MOS says to do, you are the one that reverts to the violation of the MOS. Bignole22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's called Smallville Wikia, the entire thing is about Smallville. You guys are using this as an attempt to bypass a vote that we had about individual episode page, by trying to "fluff" the page so that it becomes too large. You obviously have not argument for why you are ignoring one guideline, and not others. This is some poor attempt to and and double-up your efforts to get your way. Bignole22:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the consensus of the vote, yeah I do...but I think what you meant to say was "You had a vote, but surely you don't think that 'we'll' abide by that vote..do you?". Bignole22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it was pretty cool - made up for last week's rather drab episode. This one gave us some pretty good close up shots of the ships - if you have any maybe we can replace some of them on the misc ships page. Cyberia2323:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those subjects Matthewfenton holds dear, such as the television show Medium (TV series), are inviolable, evidence be damned. He is a particularly difficult Wikipedian to work with. I'm not one to leave commenatary on a user's talk page, but he left me a doozy, so I am returning the favor. If you see him in a discussion about an article, be prepared to give up trying to edit it away from what he thinks it should be. Johnashby17:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to me that we've been saying Apollo is a Major in the past few episodes for season 3... I thought he was made a Commander in "Captain's Hand" after Garner died. Was he demoted back to Major after Pegasus was destroyed? If so, I don't recall that ever happening. Cyberia2323:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I figured he must have been demoted since he returned to Galactica, as Commander he technically outranked Colonel Tigh which was two ranks above Major. Cyberia2322:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I notice you removed the in-universe tag from this article, claiming that the fact that the article admits the thing is fictional in one sentence is sufficient to make it not be in-universe. This is not so. This would entirely negate the point of the tag, after all! The following two sections are entirely in-universe, still.
For example, the paragraph:
"To accommodate to the rapid expansion of the Federation in the late 22nd and early 23rd centuries, Starfleet began constructing a new orbital facility. For years Starfleet had only had a single-ship orbital platform for the maintaining and building of Federation starships, and it was soon recognized that a single facility was not sufficient. Spacedock One was completed and activated in 2274."
now, actually, this seems to be entirely made up, as far as I can tell. But, if this wasn't entirely made up, it would want to be written as something like
"The Earth Spacedock is first seen in the movie "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. It was explained that it had only recently opened, a decade before the setting of that movie, in order to provide for an increase in capacity for Starfleet."
See the difference? One is in-universe, the other is out-of-universe. In-universe is generally only ok for plot summaries. However, since the article appears entirely made up, this is rather moot, and the article wants far more severe work done to it. Morwen - Talk11:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ta for the cleanup. can you think of anything else it might want to cover? I think the only thing that's properly unsourced at the moment is the original repeat date, which a random IP added. No idea how to find that. Morwen - Talk17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Memory Alpha would probably be a sufficient source for this sort of detail, especially since the date given is internally consistent with other dates. The perfect source would be an old TV Guide or newspaper microfilm, I suppose, but I think there's a limit to how much we can expect for perfect sourcing of each word on a non-controversial topic. Newyorkbrad17:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought posting a one-line thing saying you're running for admin on your talk page was ok. Yikes! :) Keep your vote and diff link, but I took it off on my page after you put that up. --kizzle00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that nuclear missiles could be referred to as "ordnance". However, the visual appearance of the "ordnance" missile strikes on Galactica in the Miniseries (and "Exodus", for that matter) is decidedly different from the visual appearance of the nuclear missile's detonation earlier in the Miniseries; the damage inflicted is also noticably less. It's also worth noting that the radiological alarm was not raised in respect of the "ordnance", as was the case with the nukes in the Miniseries, "33" and "The Captain's Hand". Taking these points together, I'd say that we have a good case that the "ordnance" that stuck Galactica during the Battle of Ragnar Anchorage was conventional, not nuclear. Your thoughts? Sullivan.t.j01:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why you invoked this? I suggested a few merges that seem to me to be no-brainers : classes that are strongly identified with one particular ship, and have appeared only as cameo roles at other times. I have also outlined my detailed reasons for doing so. And you accuse me of violating WP:POINT. WP:POINT isn't just "hah, this user did something I disagree with".
The policy for example says that "an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create proof that the rule does not work".
I have, in good faith, suggested some merges, and outlined principles why I think those merges a good idea. I am perfectly happy to debate the merits of the issue with people, which is why i asked for comments on the talk page prior to doing the moves. For you then to accuse me of acting in bad faith, I do not understand. I am not trying to harm Wikipedia's Star Trek coverage in any way: I am trying to make it less "fannish" and more encyclopedic, to be sure, as is fitting in an encyclopedia. I have got a list of articles to improve to featured status - I am starting with Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode) and plan to move onto Spock and then probably one of the Enterprises.
You gave me no detailed reason about the reason Coco Pops should not be introduced as Cocoa Krispies in respect to the American company. I would also like a legitimate reason why this isn't reverse biasing. Hungry Jack's is Australia's Burger King counterpart, so if everyone else besides the US called the restaurant Hungry Jack's would that mean that the original name Burger King should be belittled for informal purposes? Not really.
You said: "Yamla I feel obliged to notify you that your own image upload (C++ book image) is less then perfect ;-)"
This is a particularly good catch. However, note that the image was uploaded before detailed fair-use rationales need to be given. Nevertheless, I should take the time to add a detailed rationale just for the sake of completeness. --Yamla18:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm surprised no one jumped on it yet. I've been kinda of busy this weekend so I haven't gotten around to it yet. I'll try later today though. Cyberia2322:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where was the consensus that odd spelling should be used? It's bad enough that a US product from a US company is listed under it's non-US name, but I don't see anywhere on the talk page about not using American spelling (which is better IMO since it doesn't add extra u's to words). TJ Spyke00:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You may find reading Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(titles)#Quotation_marks interesting, particularly the bit where it says : "Titles of shorter works, such as the following, should be enclosed in double quotation marks [...] Episodes of a television series". I say this not because I feel strongly on the matter, merely noting that it's generally a good idea to check the guideline you are citing actually supports your position. Morwen - Talk23:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no definition, but it does give "episodes of a television series" as a specific example of that. Now, you are free to disagree with the appropriateness of that all you like, but it's indisputibly there in black and white (or whatever you have your colour scheme as), and it's probably much better to just to admit your mistake, revert yourself, and move on. Morwen - Talk23:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you of what you said in the edit summary
rvt. - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) says nothing of the such (it does however mention films and TV series.. but not episodes.
This is simply not true. Rules-lawyering about the lengths of episodes isn't going to change the simple fact that this statement is wrong. It does mention episodes. Morwen - Talk23:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wholesale removal of all external links from Science fiction article
Matthew, I would appeciate it if you would reply here and not on my Talk page, so that interested parties can read the entire conversation in one place.
You responded to my query with "We don't censor against possible 'spoilers'." I'm a bit baffled by that response. First of all, who is this "we" that you are speaking for? Second, Wikepedia pages do take steps to prevent revealing plot spoilers. That is why Template:spoiler exists.
In view of the fact that the title "Mayor" is a huge plot spoiler for episode 11 of Jericho, can you please explain why you believe that information must be displayed in the navigation template, which appears in every article related to the series? The information is already available -- marked with Template:spoiler warnings -- in the articles about the winner of the election and "Vox Populi", the episode in which the election occurs. So I fail to see how it will be "censored" if it's not in the template. Pat Berry02:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why the title "Mayor" needs to be in the template at all. None of the other character names are preceded by job titles. Pat Berry02:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, I generally agree that we do not remove things simply for the sake of them being a spoiler alone, but there things we can do within reason. For one, nav templates typically don't go out of their way to make linked text longer when it's not needed. It's pretty clear that someone went out of their way to include a very needless spoiler that doesn't aid in anything. That's pretty much trolling behavior and we can remove those kinds of things. Not only that, but nav templates usually are not considered article content. No information is being removed from articles. -- Ned Scott03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "By the power vested in me by the lords of Kobol I hereby revoke your "image ban" - on a serious note: you are not banned (see WP:BAN#Decision_to_ban - Yamla's "ban" doesn't meet the Banning policy)"
This sort of statement is counterproductive. By encouraging a person to continue violating Wikipedia's image copyright and fair-use policies, you are encouraging a situation where a very productive and well-meaning contributor may have to be blocked indefinitely from editing. I was not asking him to cease contributing to any specific article or to the Wikipedia at large, only to stop uploading inappropriate images. I also have offered to review any image he wishes to upload should he prefer that approach. But given that virtually every single image he uploads violates Wikipedia policies, your statements were ill-advised. --Yamla03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss the production notes first, before deleting. If you have an issue with them, that's fair, but since there is a difference of opinion it should be discussed first. I was in the process of rewriting the note to emphasize that it is an American/British funded show, but produced in Canada. (That is now in the article.) Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may not have noticed, but an empty bgcolour using your version is the same as bgcolour=transparent, instead of using the default color. The only way it shows the default using your setup is if you don't include the field altogether. Therefore, your change makes it so a straight copy and paste of the sample shows no default color at all. The CSS hack shows the default and overwrites the previous one if the field is not empty. Furthermore, it was thoroughly tested in all conditions in a sandbox. --PhantomS00:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I moved it to the left is that on my screen there is a large gap between the History heading and the start of the section, as the image at the top of the section is "wedged" on the right under the ship infobox. Is that just my monitor settings, or does the image need to be moved to a more acceptable line of the page code? -- saberwyn08:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew: I appreciate your input with regards to the Jericho characters. However, you may not be aware of all of the details in this situation. The characters in question ("Deputy Jimmy" and "Deputy Bill") are minor characters, by any definition of the term. At this point in the series, they don't even have surnames. However, one editor, User:69.248.74.237, spends a large portion of his/her edit time trying to promote the two to "main actor" status. This includes repeatedly listing them in the main article and moving them from "minor characters" to "main characters" at List of Jericho characters. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy10:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe i was wrong about the name, but the link is still wrong in the article Weapons of Star Trek. You might want to correct that. BTW, what's the difference between "photon" and "photonic"? Thx.Kkmic11:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its disappointing to see your RfA fail, the oppose reasons were very strong and I did not have a good reason to support you this time. I understand that you are a good user, and are dedicated to the cause of Wikipedia; you need to take some time and understand the rationale behind the opposes so that you could improve your conduct on Wikipedia. Best of luck for next time. Yours truly — Nearly Headless Nick15:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually not a favor...well tecnically yes...I'm not sure. But here's the thing: Somebody deleted Jess Sathers's page(you know, from The O.C.?) . As you can see, as I type in Jess Sathers, its in red, which means it was deleted. I know for a fact that there was a page called Jess Sathers before. So heres the favor I'm asking...find out who did it. And also, bring that page back! Thank you! Adelyna
Majorly would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Majorly to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matthew/Archive. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
From the article itself: "An FTL, or "Faster Than Light", Drive is a fictional propulsion technology from the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica television series that allows space ships to achieve superluminal travel." To me, a space ship is a vehicle, and nothing that I can see in the article indicates that it's used on anything other than (non-living) vehicles, but thanks for the link to Vehicle because I had no idea what a vehicle was before. If it really gets up your nose that bad to have an article about fictional vehicles' propulsion systems in a category from fictional vehicles, far be it from me to keep putting your pet article in an appropriate category. Otto471122:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After the petty edit war over references at Battlestar, I'd hoped you would have learned not to immediately revery things which are obviously disputed. In T'plana-hath you are reverting within a time frame which would make it impossible to make a discussion, thus orphaning said discussion from the article. Please stop doing this. Not everyone has the time to sit refreshing a discussion page all day until consensus is reached. It would be an act of good faith to leave templates up until such point as the disputes they reference have been resolved. Chris Cunningham10:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are wrong, a first edit is not a revert. Regardless, both of you should not be edit warring, especially over something as trivial as a tag. Page protected for now. >Radiant<16:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: [18], how in the world is Radiant's action a conflict of interest? He's never edited that article as far as I can tell. And your "wocket science" comment... I'll bet you would be the first person ever to run for adminship one day and get blocked for incivility the next. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link me some diffs please? I know we disagreed on the battlestar galactica ship articles, but I can't recall ever tagging more than a handful of pages in a row. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was on a b5 kick that night and reading pages, only to discover that they were all written in-universe so I tagged a few of them. (I read in tabs so I may have several pages open to read before I tag any of them) Every single one of those tags is still on the article and the problems that prompted it are still present, so I'm curious exactly what the issue is. The racial articles are in-universe and the EarthForce one is full of fan speculation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nice to accuse Avt Tor of edit warring when you're the other party in the same edit war. I've protected that page too. Please discuss such issues on the talk page rather than, you know, edit warring. >Radiant<11:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, it was all right, but I don't think the writing approached the quality of the original. The flying bikes of doom were just the most obvious example of this. --BlueSquadronRaven21:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see where he's getting confused about screen resolution though. He thinks I'm saying that the image gets placed in the exact middle of the sentence on the screen, not off to the side like it normally gets placed. I'm saying it cut the paragraph in half, because the sentence gets interrupted, you see the picture, and then there is a break in the line and the sentence starts again. Cyberia2322:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're comment on my RFA is fine but for clarity were excluding reverting vandalism etc like: [19]? But there are a few others more recent e.g. [20] Thanks --BozMotalk12:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed you edit warring again (as well as having engaged in several over the weekend) despite having been warned several times to not do that. You have been blocked for twelve hours. We're not working on a deadline here, so you don't have to remove every detail you disagree with immediately. In the future please discuss issues on the talk pages, rather than edit warring. >Radiant<14:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I will be filing a user conduct RfC once the block ends, I've had enough of your disruption towards me, I've been letting it slide past due to the fact I understand you are not to happy I am of an opposing side towards you in the naming conventions situation . You should be aware blocks are preventative and you've failed to show what you are trying to prevent any disruption, now if you are talking about List of Stargate SG-1 episodes you will notice Ned (who is your friend - and a supporter of your "side" of the arbitration leaving extraneous and rude edit summaries like "rv. Matthew, do you even know what you are talking about?" - needless to say I'm the only one to have made use of the talk page and explained the situation. Needless to say you obviously have a conflict of interest and your participation in Category:Rouge admins shows lack of judgement. thanks/Fenton, MatthewLexic Dark52278 Alpha 77114:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've been involved in about eight edit wars in the past week, a block to prevent further edit wars appears reasonable. By the way, Ned is not my friend; I hardly even know him. That would be Unction's law. >Radiant<14:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this block. Actually, you got off lightly. 12 hours is hardly long enough to allow other editors to fix the results of your edit warring, so if you resume, expect a longer block to allow them more time. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank you for helping the Wikipedia community determine if I should become a sysop by voting oppose on my second RFA. Many opposes were because of my "different" answer to question two, which I still partly agree with. I withdrew per WP:SNOW, as consensus to promote was against me. I will continue to improve until one day, I become an admin. Happy editing! --TeckWizTalkContribs@21:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for ranges of things like years and pages, one usually doesn't put spaces around en-dashes. However, when connecting mixed dates, one often does.
"En dashes that are used instead of hyphens to connect words normally do not have spaces around them. An exception is when excluding them may cause confusion or odd look (e.g., 12 June – 3 July; contrast 12 June–3 July)."
Hi your oppose comment was obscure to the point where it made no sense to me casually reading the nom. Would you mind adding some context or a diff ti make it clearer? --Spartaz11:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, the link that you just added to the RFB actually mentions a statement by Cyde. I could not find GMK anywhere on your rfa. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks — Lost(talk)13:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to restore my work on this page, please do not just remove it again. I checked my work in both Firefox, and Internet Explorer to make sure it would flow well in both despite the resolution of the users screen. It is specifically set up to put ships side-by-side if there is room (800px +) and one above the other if there is not. If you have some constructive criticism I would welcome it. But just removing my input fixes nothing. With regards to the merger tags, whoever put them there did not give any reasons on the talk pages, and with out any arguments for merger, I felt no need to argue for the existing separate pages. —MJBurrage • TALK • 15:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merges are discussed, you are welcome to discuss them - and you may discuss your changes, pages should certainly not be formatted like that, and certainly when they don't render well for everybody, so you could say I dispute your edit, and hence you must discuss this first with the other editors on the talk page, thanking you very muchely. thanks/Fenton, MatthewLexic Dark52278 Alpha 77116:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can anyone discuss my edits if they cannot see them? Please at least leave them long enough for other users to see, comment, and possibly improve. That is the whole point of not just reverting someone else’s work as you have done twice now. When you say they do not “render well” could you be more specific please. I would be happy to work on any issues given the chance. —MJBurrage • TALK • 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well-researched, cogently argued disagreements always help, whatever the outcome. Thanks for the note, and for explicitly raising the issue. (Perhaps I should have done this myself.) Now we can see what others think, too. ~ Jeff Q(talk)19:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad18:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you've been following this RfA since leaving your comment[21] early in the RfA, well then disregard this comment.
Otherwise you should know that there was apparently some sort of glitch in the reporting of edit histories.
You had noted "Oppose - The last "contribution" I can find you made to the encyclopaedia (the thing we are building here) was on the 8th of January :-\" ... yet, several hours later, the edit history was showing 200+ edits between January 8 and January 15.
If you look a little further up (village pump), you will see that changes were made for handhelds. I wonder if they could be fouling up popups. Incidentally I only reverted Deskana's change for a short while. I have commented out popups, but it seems to make no difference, according to firebug it is still erroring on that line - weird . My de: account is also affected. Hmm... even SmackBot which has a very simple js seems to be under the spell. RichFarmbrough, 11:26 9 January2007 (GMT).
I have been improving Shilpa's filmography section writing her fiolm career and starting the missing films - she is a major figure in global headlines at the minute so I want visitors to wikipedia o not see the red links - I did tag the racism part for cleanup but I agree it is extremely poor and quite offensive to many. It needs writing asap Ernst Stavro Blofeld20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the name. Ionian makes sense since it's part of the whole Greco-Roman mythos. I thought they said either Iconian or Erosian (ie. the god Eros) or something. I'm kinda POed about SciFi movie BSG to Sunday nights instead of Friday, since I now have to stay up late and get up at 5AM on Monday :( Cyberia2321:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support in my RfA. I withdrew when it became clear that the uphill climb had crossed the snowball threshold, but I appreciate your support and the process gave me some good ideas for other ways I can be contributing to Wikipedia. I'll work on the areas that came up in the discussion, and try again after I've gained wider experience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no policy on Wikipedia that says an editor can't replace content with more useful content, text or images. Images which are too dark to make sense of aren't useful. Using the replacement feature only makes sense if one is improving or correcting the same image, which is not the case here, hence the different file names. You don't "have to revert", and you have no authority over other editors. Unless a consensus (i.e. people other than you) objects, I'm going to continue adding images and, where missing, episode descriptions to this page. Or, if you were so inclined, you might want to put up images that weren't mostly black. I'm only adding images where the entries are either blank or not useful. Avt tor00:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with other editors. There is no logic in pasting a different image over the same file name, and I for one am loath to simply delete content. If other people insist that I use old file names for new images, that's what I'll do, but until I hear suggested by someone else, I am not acting on this (IMO silly) idea. If consensus is to keep the dark blurry images instead of the brighter images, it would be a heck of a lot easier to revert to the old filenames than to have to dig into the history of each image. Avt tor01:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of discussion, I'll accept that some editors could be concerned about "mass-orphaning". I'll overwrite the existing files.
Might be more effective, certainly more collegial, to go to the talk page first, instead of starting with reverts or user page sniping. That's what most people seem to do. Ultimately the end result will be the same, but you might annoy people less. Just an observation. Avt tor02:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You used "(WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information)" to justify a revert. You revert my edit there, even though there are FAR more deliberate mentions of food as a use of humor and as a plot device than there are callbacks to Wizard of Oz (which is mentioned directly on the SG1 main page). Perhaps editing the show article pages should be restricted to people who actually watch the show, and know a little more than average about critical interpretation of screenwriting. Or...yeah, you're probably right. Wikipedia should be place for debate over the minutia of what country appears on the main page for a production credit. Obviously placed easter-eggs that pop up frequently throughout the series and might give true fans cause to chuckle are clearly meant for an "indiscriminate collection of information" and should be reverted forthwith. Thanks for letting me know early what's really important to seasoned Wikipedia editors such as yourself. I'll leave you to quibble over image quality now, in peace. Tarkaan03:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Episode Style SheetFollowing the plot summary, several (optional) sections may follow. These include:
* "Quotes" section
* "Trivia" section
o Significance, discussing the episode's overall contribution to the Stargate mythology (character developments, shifts of power)
o Trivia, adding some interesting facts about the episode that would not be appropriate for the introduction or summary
o Controversy, if the episode is particularly divisive among fans or introduces an element that has met with a harsh fan reaction or that violates continuity (this could apply to Sam's boyfriend Pete Shanahan, for example).
o This would also be a good place to mention if fans generally loved or hated the episode (use GEOS or Gateworld for this, don't decide yourself!) and why.
This policy applies to other tv shows as well, so please stop deleting trivia or note sections. And if you personally believe information to be trivial, unverifiable, or indiscriminate information then say so and ask the information be removed or integrated into the article if possible. Mwhope03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I think it's inappropriate to identify the source of the severed hand in the Random Shoes article (and other articles about Torchwood episodes) is that it's not just a spoiler for that episode, but for the whole series. Once I saw the Random Shoes episode, I thought I could safely read the WP article without worrying about spoilers -- I didn't expect to get spoiled for something they're keeping coy about for the whole season. :-)
I think it's reasonable to expect the spoiler warning for a film or a single episode of TV to cover anything that's revealed in that presentation. I think it's reasonable to identify where the hand comes from in the Doctor Who article or the Torchwood article. I don't think it's nice to identify it in summaries for individual episodes. Thoughts?
the re-airing of the show over the summer and upon the network switch is informtion pertinent to the show, to the episode, is sourced, and cannot be conveyed in the plot summary. The information is also not present on the Sliders page. Perhaps it should be moved there if it does not belong on the episode page. But it SHOULD belong on wikipedia.
As for the cat, fine, whatever. Clearly Quinn, a physics genius who invents sliding between parallel dimensions, has a cat named schrodinger who he refers to in mulitple episodes. The cat is obviously named after the nobel prize winning physicist of the same name. The conection is so blatant that to my knowledge no one ever bothered to ask or publish that this was the case.
if you personally dislike trivia sections, please try discussing the removal of information before simply deleting it
as you love to say the responsibility for providing verifible sources lies with the contributer, so please honor and respect the competent contributers who have helped create and still better the project.
First, simply because a piece of information relates only to one country is not a reason to remove it, else I suggest you take a long major edit to overhaul the American history page, and sequentially every page on wikipedia. Second, the information on re-airing is of historical significance and is present, and listed for the same reasons as the original airing. Notice not every airing of the spisode is listed, only the original, the re-airing during the summer after season 1 and the reairing when the show switched networks. In both cases the intent was to drum up ratings and interest. if you can present a valid arguement, let me hear it, I have given sound reasoning and presented an argument, please do the same and stop censoring information. And yes indiscriminate information collecting is not the purpose of wikipedia, however encyclopedic information does seem to fall under its umbrella Mwhope21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MatthewFenton, I would like to ask for your help in bettering the Aaron Sorkin article. I've noticed your helpful edits over at the Studio 60 article and I think you could help me out. I have made extensive edits to the Sorkin article, and have tried to make it both interesting and factual. I would appreciate if you could as a peer, review the article and perhaps even help with the lead section. I'm hoping to set the Sorkin biography on a track leading to Featured Article status eventually. It would be a first, because as far as I can tell there isn't a Screenwriter yet who's been featured. Anyways, any help would be greatly appreciated. -BiancaOfHell00:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you create the page 'Glorious Heritage' with reference to the High Guard ships... If so, I have tried to follow your layout in the 'General Charateristics' box. However the information i am trying to put in wont allow it, ie. new headings as i seem to have more information than you previously had. I know it has something to do with, on the 'edit this page' and specifically 'infobox fictional spaceship'. My question is... how is it possible to put new headings in there?
I also don't want to impune your work on creating the pages but just as an example... the DSA 1 had only 60 ELS Tubes, the DSA 2 had the 180
You do have mistakes on your page for the DSA's and i didn't want to change your work... the 'Wrath of Achilles was not a DSA 2, only the Resolution of Hector was.
Hey Matthew, I consider you an ally in support of using images in the episode lists. There seems to be a lot of conflict between myself and Ed g2s over the List of Seinfeld episodes page and I would like to ask if you can mediate or provide an opinion on the discussion page. Any help would be appreciated Sfufan200519:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I wish I could have seen it. :( But I am having a great holiday. I'll take a look at the Gilmore Girls thing a little later. Thanks. Ladida00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I must urge you to discuss the page on the talk instead of revert warring, all images pass the FUC, also remember to provide reversion reasons rather then reverting a persons good faith edits with the [rollback] button, thanks/Fenton, MatthewLexic Dark52278 Alpha 77119:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have left extensive comments on the talk page - you, on the other hand, reverted without comment. Good faith has nothing to do with this. ed g2s • talk15:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input on Space warfare in fiction. Sadly, it was deleted. However, I did userfy it beforehand and I currently have a copy that I am improving so that it could become an article again. I would be most appreciative if you helped with the article, especially with sources and referances. It can be found here.
Thanks for uploading Image:Casualty Intro.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 BJBot16:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:WindowsMessenger.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:WindowsMessenger.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 BJBot20:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Matthew, I noticed on your oppose vote for User:Mecu you said "lack of activity (stopped 25th, back 28th)". It's just a really, really minor point but sometimes two days off can occur for any reason and I don't think it's fair to add it to your oppose. I'm certain your other points are fair, but sometimes people need some time off. I'm just going through a difficult patch with my family, illness and stuff, and getting back to WP is something I kind of look forward to, and to see that my lack of activity for three days would count against me seems somewhat harsh. I'm not trying to start anything difficult here (I don't have the energy, for one thing!) but I just felt that of all your oppose opinions this one (probably because I felt it) seemed a bit too much. Anyway, it's late for me, I wish you nothing but the best, but I wanted to say something to you, I hope you understand where I'm coming from. The Rambling Man23:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
look at every single wikipedia article dealing with a television episode, including those of Heroes. They all have pictures in the infobox. Unless you can find a better picture, i see no reason why it shouldn't stay. dposse13:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, try to be civil. There is no reason to get angry. Now, why is there an issue with the fair use of those two pictures and not the others? By the way, i've created a discussion topic on Talk:Fallout_(Heroes)#images. Discuss it there, with the rest of Wikiproject:Heroes and other wikipedians. If you continue to revert it without discussing it to a WP:Consensus, i will have the two articles fully protected until we reach one. Thanks. dposse13:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Casualty Intro.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 BJBot16:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:WindowsMessenger.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:WindowsMessenger.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 BJBot20:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Matthew, I noticed on your oppose vote for User:Mecu you said "lack of activity (stopped 25th, back 28th)". It's just a really, really minor point but sometimes two days off can occur for any reason and I don't think it's fair to add it to your oppose. I'm certain your other points are fair, but sometimes people need some time off. I'm just going through a difficult patch with my family, illness and stuff, and getting back to WP is something I kind of look forward to, and to see that my lack of activity for three days would count against me seems somewhat harsh. I'm not trying to start anything difficult here (I don't have the energy, for one thing!) but I just felt that of all your oppose opinions this one (probably because I felt it) seemed a bit too much. Anyway, it's late for me, I wish you nothing but the best, but I wanted to say something to you, I hope you understand where I'm coming from. The Rambling Man23:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
look at every single wikipedia article dealing with a television episode, including those of Heroes. They all have pictures in the infobox. Unless you can find a better picture, i see no reason why it shouldn't stay. dposse13:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, try to be civil. There is no reason to get angry. Now, why is there an issue with the fair use of those two pictures and not the others? By the way, i've created a discussion topic on Talk:Fallout_(Heroes)#images. Discuss it there, with the rest of Wikiproject:Heroes and other wikipedians. If you continue to revert it without discussing it to a WP:Consensus, i will have the two articles fully protected until we reach one. Thanks. dposse13:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. How is changing where the picture is placed going to save it? I'm all for saving the pictures, but i doubt that placing it lower in the article is somehow going to make any Admin or user not want to delete it. dposse15:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't answer my question of why only those two? Those two pictures were gained the same way as in the Genesis article and all the others, right? And god damnit, i did not want to have this discussion here between only us, but whatever. By the way, one of the thing on the "to do" list of the heroes wikiproject is to provide fair use for all the images for the Heroes article. Would putting that at number one on our to do list help to get what we both want? 'cause i love compromises, don't you?dposse16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Katelost.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. User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)02:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My first reaction is that this is something that belongs to consensus on a relevant discussion page (possibly the WikiProject page), not a one-on-one discussion.
My second reaction is that "Commonwealth English" is slightly misleading. I think certain pages might appropriately be written in Canadian English, which is not exactly the same as the British varieties.
My third reaction is that I am rather strongly guided by the general principle that a page should usually remain in the national variety it was originally written in.
I'm not a giant BSG fan, so I'd draw on other analogies. For Smallville and Stargate, pages related to production might be appropriate in Canadian English; certainly if someone separated all the Smallville location stuff onto a separate page, it should be in Canadian English. For individual actors it depends. For someone well established in Canadian television like Donnelly Rhodes (The Beachcombers, Danger Bay, DaVinci's Inquest), Canadian spelling would be appropriate. For someone who is only known for their BSG role, like Tricia Helfer, I'd have a much weaker preference.
Battlestar Galactica is produced for an American company, which leans towards American spelling for anything customer/viewer-focused, e.g. the main page, discussion about content (plot/setting) and distribution.
There's also a lot of grey area here. To me, Stargate Atlantis feels almost completely Canadian; Stargate feels very Canadian
Every Canadian non-fiction writer is taught to write for their market. I have many Canadian writer friends who use American spelling almost exclusively in their professional work (and yet still use Canadian spelling in their web bios). A Canadian would normally use American spelling for an international publication.
I am kind of the worst person to ask for an opinion on this subject. Having been born and raised in the US but spent most of my adult life in Canada, I am always going to be the guy who wants to flip the coin and have it land on its side. Canadians are aggressively tolerant about linguistic variations.
Thanks for uploading Image:Star Trek - Borg cube.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 BJBot06:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:HaspellCorp - Main Desk.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:HaspellCorp - Main Desk.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 BJBot10:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:HaspelCorp - Promicin from Isabelle.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:HaspelCorp - Promicin from Isabelle.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 BJBot10:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Promicin - Ability remover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Promicin - Ability remover.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 BJBot10:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:4400 Center - Seized Notice.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:4400 Center - Seized Notice.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 BJBot10:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bad Girls - S01E01.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bad Girls - 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 BJBot11:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word is being used in contrast to "serious": the book was a satirical work rather than a documentary.
Have you actually read the book?
I can thoroughly recommend it, it is very funny: it is a "humorous" book hence the description.
Please do not enter into pointless edit wars over simple adjectives.
In the alternative, would "satirical" make you happier?
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk18:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to the discussion page before you start blanking information without a valid (ie: Policy violating) reason.
Reverted edits on page only remove irrelevent information, other user repeated information about Asgard shields already on the page, but with poorer gramatical accuracy. - 59.167.10.5815:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just think it's pointless to put a citation on something that's not even mentioned in the episode page, it was something shown in the episode, not spoken but I've added them, happy now? Anyway, it was NEVER called a BC-304, only a 304 and I've corrected that.
Ok, sorry. I was having a rough morning. I always thought citations needed to be referenced in the episode page, if that's not the case then I guess it's not pointless.
Look at how the other episodes pages are built before you go on your one man crusade. There's always a notes section and a trivia section. Deleting stuff for no reason just because you don't like the way they look is hardly constructive. Get with the programme will ya. Saebhiar11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, look more closely and you'll see there's a note section everytime something relevant to the story arc happens in one episode. But that's hardly the point, editing doesn't mean deleting stuff (especially if they are relevant) without so much as a by your leave. You could have at least shown the common courtesy of dropping me a line before you went on your "editing" rampage. Good thing I was watching the page. Saebhiar11:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would definitely be interested in having another shot at it. It has been five months since the last nomination, after all. Everyking12:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have far more than 45,000 edits; I think it's over 100,000 now. I think some counters have an upper limit and then cut off. Anyway, I'm going to wait probably until tonight or tomorrow to accept the nom and get this started, because I need to go to sleep soon and then I have work. Everyking13:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matt! You opposed my last RfA in late November 2006. There were opposes citing civility and inexperience with policy. It's about 3 months after that, and I think I've gained more experiance in policy and more emotional stability on-wiki. Recently I've been doing a bit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam stuff, though this last week I haven't had a great deal of time. Anyway, I was considering an RfA in a month or two, and I wanted to ask a few people if they had any recommendations as to what I should to or criticisms over the last few months. Thanks for reading! ST47Talk01:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to award you this Barnstar because I've seen all the work you've done on the Star Trek articles, including fix a few mistakes that I made. This is the first Barnstar I've ever awarded anyone. Acalamari19:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you want to keep the Enterprise-E's top speed as Warp 8? I've seen all the Star Trek movies, and I don't remember E going any faster than Warp 8, and if Warp 8 is the highest seen speed of E, then Warp 8 should remain the highest speed until E or another Sovereign-class vessel goes at Warp 9.985. Acalamari19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Medium.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. BigrTex17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you pulled the current television series template from the two articles I had added it to (Heroes (TV series) and The Dresden Files (TV series)), noting it as "inappropriate." In what way is the current television series template inappropriate to an article about a current television series, which contains content related to that series and subject to change as new episodes are released? It seems to be particularly appropriate, on the face of it. There are no guidelines on the template page itself to describe appropriateness or applicability. Perhaps you could point me to some sort of guideline page? Thanks. —Stormraven17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for speedily keeping Image:TPol2003.jpg. You and I may not often agree on images but this was clearly the right decision here. And while we may often disagree, I do appreciate the work you do around here. --Yamla20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have four times reverted the image I added to Joachim (Star Trek). Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Shaundakulbara00:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't agree with your reversion here.[22] Whilst of course the plot summary is written in the present tense as it relates to fictional events - as I had left it - the opening paragraph clearly should be in the past as it is a factual description of the show. As the show has been cancelled, it is therefore correct to say that "Hollyoaks: In the City was a a British soap opera...". As far as I can find, every other cancelled/ended show's article has its opening paragraph in the past tense (eg: Dad's Army, Father Ted, Married… with Children, even the non fiction Grandstand (BBC)). Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd restore the lost cleanup work you also reverted at the same time. Cheers, DWaterson00:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. It is perfectly obvious that in natural English speech one refers to an event which has now ceased as being in the past tense, even when it can be repeated again. Also, as I asked above, I'd appreciate it if you'd restore the lost cleanup work you also reverted at the same time; as you will know from Help:Reverting, "You are responsible for re-doing all the subsequent edits which you un-did," and "If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary." Off-hand, I can find no other evidence in other articles to support your assertion that ceased TV shows should remain in the present. Cheers, DWaterson00:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I agree that most fictional works should be in the present tense - we still say that Hamletis a work of Shakespeare and the Mona Lisais a painting by da Vinci - but in the case of dead broadcast shows I just don't think it makes grammatical sense. I also note that WikiProject TV have as their model of good style, "...M*A*S*H (Mobile Army Surgical Hospital) was an American television series..." Clearly this is something that the MoS needs to clarify. Anyway, I will go ahead and re-revert as you don't have time to fix it up. I didn't cite the theme tune as, per WP:CITE, I didn't expect it to be "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged"; the source for that is of course the programme's credits, which are rather difficult to cite anyway as they aren't exactly third-party. Ta, DWaterson01:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of trivia can be useful for developing a new articleSections which contain facts to be merged into the main body of the article are a list of "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Seek to minimize it, but meanwhile leave it in place as a raw store of facts for both readers and editors to work with.Mwhope01:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I have AIM/MSN/YIM. However, for privacy reasons, I choose not to list them here on Wikipedia nor do I plan to have my Wikipedia life mix with my messenger one. I have been considering getting a new screen name for each that is for Wikipedia only. If you wish to contact me in real time, I am afraid that my talk page will have to do for now. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand your concerns now. I agree there's no doubt the image's copyrights belong Paramount pictures. What I meant when I asked for " verifiable source information to backup the "promotional" tag" was some verifiable information to back up the claim that this image has been "released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media". As I told on the image talk page, it's a common mistake to believe that images found on the internet (even on official sites) are always being released for media usage.
Oh, I understand your concerns now. I agree there's no doubt the image's copyrights belong Paramount pictures. What I meant when I asked for " verifiable source information to backup the "promotional" tag" was some verifiable information to back up the claim that this image has been "released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media". As I told on the image talk page, it's a common mistake to believe that images found on the internet (even on official sites) are always being released for media usage.
Didn't realise you'd replied, sorry, I've personally seen the image on StarTrek.com, I'll give skidoo a bit of time to add his source before I go hunting down the location. If push comes to shove I/someone could just get a TV cap of her in her 3rd season look from an episode and {{tv-screenshot}} it, HTH HAND. thanks/Fenton, MatthewLexic Dark52278 Alpha 77115:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, screenshots are usually a safer bet when it's necessary to show a movie/tv character. And I believe Wikipedia already have some screenshots showing this same character, maybe some of them should be used. If I readd the {{no source}} tag now, would you consider it edit-warring? --Abu badali(talk)15:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Discussing is always better (and easier!) than warring :P !
But screen shots are usually inferior images and I've also seen them challenged on the grounds that they should only be used to illustrate the episode or specific scene in question. The image originated from startrek.com but the original page is long gone, so is there really a point in providing a URL? The image is widely disseminated on the Net. Personally I've actually given up providing images to Wikipedia because the people around here can't seem to make up their damn minds. Better to ban all images and just go text only, IMO. Would save a heck of a lot of bandwidth costs for the foundation and would eliminate the hard feelings all this fair use stuff has been causing (I know many wikipedians who have quit the project in disgust several times over this issue, including myself though I was persuaded to return). Please reply to my talk page if you do (I don't like watchlisting people's personal talk pages). 23skidoo17:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's sufficient to say startrek.com and indicate that it was downloaded 3 1/2 years ago which might as well be 35 years ago for the Internet. If nothing else that keeps the draconian ticking clock from deleting the image until a more direct link is found later. I don't have time to go hunting through archives right now; I've wasted enough time on Wikipedia today as it is. Cheers. 23skidoo17:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's really from startrek.com, it turns out to be what I was affraid of: An image mistakenly believed to be "released for media usage" simply because it was found on the internet. Images from startrek.com are part of the site contents, and are not for distribution or reuse in other sites. Theirs terms of use clearly say in allcaps: "UNAUTHORIZED USE, COPYING, REPRODUCTION, MODIFICATION, REPUBLISHING, UPLOADING, DOWNLOADING, POSTING, TRANSMITTING, DISTRIBUTING OR DUPLICATING OR ANY OTHER MISUSE OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL IS PROHIBITED".
But it's been used in newspapers! Magazines! Never mind. To hell with it. Delete it and all other images on Wikipedia. I'm done with it. I've deleted both images and beginning this weekend I will be deleting all images I have ever uploaded to Wikipedia. it'll take awhile. 23skidoo19:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23skidoo, you don't seem mature enough for the position of an admin. This is not the first time you overreact to criticism over your upoloads. As I said before, this is a common mistake, and you shouldn't feel so terrible for that. That was a good faith mistake from your part, and as long as you don't run into it again, there's nothing to cry about. --Abu badali(talk)19:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to follow the history here. Every few weeks the rules are being changed and it is becoming not only frustrating and difficult to contribute to this project anymore. Images that were perfectly fine two years ago - six months ago - are now being removed with little effort being made to find replacements. There was a guy on a Fair Use discussion thread who basically said that people putting up articles on individuals should spend hours of effort to contact that person and get a photograph. I'm sorry, there is not enough time for that sort of thing and I personally refuse to do it without being paid. The efforts of trying to make this encyclopedia a useful place are being sabotaged by people who are so paranoid about the remote possibility of someone causing an issue -- and everyone I asked has refused to provide me with any proof Wikipedia has ever been sued over the use of an image -- that, to be blunt, it's just not worth the effort anymore. And the fact is, on the bottom line, no image I have ever uploaded is likely to meet the criteria that now stands, whether it's a book cover scan or a screen capture. So I might as well save people the effort of deleting them. Your comment about me being "immature" is uncalled for because you do not know all the facts as I see them. (Apologies and thanks to Matthew for using his talk page for my comments). 23skidoo19:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're being "paranoid" in wanting every article to have an image... immediately. If you're not willing to take the effort to take a picture (this is for bios, not this character's image case), why not just write a great article and await for someone willing to take the picture to take the picture? By the way, I follow the "history" quite close. The rules are not being changed, the are being enforced after long being ignored.
I notice that you pulled the current television series template from the two articles I had added it to (Heroes (TV series) and The Dresden Files (TV series)), noting it as "inappropriate." In what way is the current television series template inappropriate to an article about a current television series, which contains content related to that series and subject to change as new episodes are released? It seems to be particularly appropriate, on the face of it. There are no guidelines on the template page itself to describe appropriateness or applicability. Perhaps you could point me to some sort of guideline page? Thanks. —Stormraven17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. That's interesting. Clearly Template:Future television would be inappropriate to the articles I had modified. It's multi-purpose, but specifically for highlighting predictive information. Template:Current television merely highlights the fact that the current information is likely to be further developed by future episodes, even though the current information may not be at all predictive. Still, I have noticed that there aren't any articles that use Current television, so I'm not going to press the issue. Perhaps there ought to be guidelines on the Current television template page to explain when it should and should not be used. —Stormraven21:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the dark can't really be helped I guess, problem is everything in BSG is lit with 10 watt bulbs since they gotta keep it all "dark" and "esoteric". Cyberia2321:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you removed my minor edit about the reference to Torchwood Four echoing Babylon 4, and I do not understand the reason. It is fact that Torchwood Four is mentioned in this way, and it is fact that Babylon 4 is also mentioned in this way during Babylon 5. It was in a trivia section, and is even mentioned during the episode in question. Dozens, probably hundreds of articles have trivia sections, can you explain in more detail why you object to its inclusion? Thanks. Psicorps10:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia is to be avoided, if included it is to be cited, see WP:OR. Other articles having abundances of trivia is just an argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are welcome to discuss on the talk page however, but POV comparisons with no citations ain't encyclopaedic. thanks/Fenton, MatthewLexic Dark52278 Alpha 77110:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my original point - hundreds of other articles have trivia, even the article I added it to had a trivia section. It is not original research since it is stated in the applicable episodes of Torchwood and Babylon 5. It speaks for itself.
The line that that Jack stated that Torchwood Four disappeared is on the original article I feel makes my reference worthy of inclusion. I'm sorry if you don't agree but I don't agree with your cited reasons.
It's not a big deal, I'm happy for it to stay off if that's the general consensus. Psicorps10:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing it back is hardly edit warring, the spoiler is above the spoiler warning ,below a massive picture that draws your eye right to it , i don't think adding attempting to save is a major issue (Gnevin23:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
HI....HOW DO U PUT A BOX WHERE THE DESCRIPTION IS AT AND SOURCE AND ALL THAT BECAUSE I DONT NOE HOW AND I JUST UPLOADED SOME PICTURES....AND I NOE U NOE HOW 2 DO THAT BECAUSE I SEEN THE PICS U PUT UP....THANX.....
Adelyna00:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing Jericho. I had forgotten to log in when I put those new episodes in but it was totally my bad for not doing the linky thing.
I was not trying to "spam" nor is the site MINE, I'm just a member there. And I didn't think it would be a problem as I've seen other message boards links on various show pages, as well as fansites. Sorry.
Are you talking about the green screen "goof"? I don't think it's particularly notable, and I'm sure if you don't delete it someone else probably will. I and some others added "goofs" to the Star Trek articles and a few people deleted them (their reasoning was there was no source to the statement), I argued "watch the episode and you'll see it", but that wasn't good enough I guess and they were deleted as useless trivia. Actually having a screenshot helps credibility I guess, but anyway, goofs should probably be avoided in article episodes. Your call though. Cyberia2321:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean. Technically, you could bring a case against him for violating the 3RR rule - after three reverts of the same thing arbitration is needed. But that takes time and politics and attracts those who'd rather see all episode synopses deleted entirely. What I like to do with a problem reverter who is adamant about trivial crap is wait a day or two and delete them again when their not looking. I found usually people who obsesses about stupid things, have with low brain capacity, and they get attracted by some other little shiny object and seem to "go away" on their own. LOL! Revert em in 24 or 48 hours and about 80% of the time they give up. I could revert em later and see what happens, usually when a third-party intervenes they go away too. Cyberia2322:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never really edited the Stargate pages. I just added info on equipment and that was quite a while ago. I like the show, I just never really followed it closely and I've missed lots of episodes. Cyberia2322:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
okay, i am trying to learn. So, out of curiosity i looked at the amanda tapping page and there is an external link to imdb. If imdb is not considered a reliable source, than why point people to it? The only reason that link is there is so a viewer can see her filmography.
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--CyberGhostface21:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They've been done very well, but my only beef is that unlike the remade effects for the last three Star Wars movies where they tried to integrate old and new footage together as much as possible, they keep the new effects pretty much limited to space. Only rarely do they overlap a new scene with and old. I guess it was a matter of budget. I would have like to see at least moving skies and stuff instead of a colored studio wall when they visit planets. The scene establishing shots have been remade in most episodes and they refines the phaser streams and display graphics here and there, but thats pretty much it. Rubber monsters still look like rubber monsters, like in "Arena" the Gorn was unchanged - they did make his eyes blink a bit which I thought was funny. I provided links to some of the updated episodes, check out "Balance of Terror", "The Doomsday Machine" in particular, that was awesome. "Wink of an Eye" was cool too with the new city backdrop. Cyberia2321:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Matthew. I considered rewriting it but I am quite busy at the moment. It is a good summary of the escape plan but there isn't anything factual about it. Regards, Ladida05:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew - your note on my talk page was completely unwarranted. You are well aware that my restoration of the text you deleted did not contravene WP:AVTRIVIA, as it was exactly the sort of relevant information that "Trivia" sections are intended for. The material, which I might note was originally added to the article by a different editor, and restored by yet another following your deletion, most certainly did not contravene WP:NOR either. Please use more consideration in the future before leaving such notes. Thank you. --Ckatzchatspy04:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, I'm not sure why you're treating this quite so pedantically. Whether or not it should be in the present tense - and "it has always been" is not a valid justification, or no articles would ever get changed - I'm totally perplexed why you're disputing the title song. 1) The information is materially correct; 2) a source has been provided, which, whether particularly good or not, is in fact correct; 3) you have suggested no other alternative or provided any information to assert anything to the contrary. So I can see no problem here. DWaterson17:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel like I'm singling you out: I remove this construct wherever I see it. It's never needed and only muddles up what otherwise is perfectly clear meaning. The word "or" implicitly includes the condition of "and", and people understand this without the need for additional cues. So all of the cases you pointed out are covered by this simple and elegant word. +ILike2BeAnonymous18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Please note that we do not censor spoilers from Wikipedia because a user takes a dislike to them."
The season summaries can be read without any major spoilers. The two words I removed were unnecessary, and adding a spoiler warning to (virtually) the entire article is lazy. In the future, please keep your cliquish comments to yourself. Mratzloff22:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page or indef-block Jimbo - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) –riana_dzasta07:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree that the fact that they used the right LC call number may not be the most relevant trivia there is about Veronica Mars (although the terms relevance and trivia seem a bit contradictory). I just thought it was interesting that the writers made the effort to look up the number (and to then choose another edition). And, of course, last week's episode entry includes nailbiters such as this: "The video game that Logan and Heather play is Mario Kart: Double Dash." But if someone else, namely you, thinks, the number thing is not as interesting as I assumed, I accept that. Greetings, Blur476014:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, from the top of my head, I can remember that in the episode "One Angry Veronica", Veronica makes a comment how she was surprised Keith could fit a pony in her bedroom for Christmas, and there is one episode, where she doesn't want Keith to know what she's doing on her computer, so she shows him just a screensaver of unicorns, implying that that was what she was embarassed to show (I can look up the episode when I get the time), further saying that girls are crazy about unicorns. So I also noted the number of pony and unicorn-references in the show. Yet their relevance is very disputable as well. Blur476014:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I thought you just deleted this sentence: "This is at least the sixth time writers have referenced a ponies or unicorns on the show." But you deleted the entire paragraph. That is consistent (and understandable). Blur476014:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you removed the section about critisms of Digital Spy by forum members. I have a couple of point to make about this
Wikipedia only recomends that forums are not used to verify content. Wikipedia also recomends that people are bold (WP:BOLD) when editing content. So, when discussing a forum, it is natural that forum content is used as verification as that is the subject under discussion.
The links that were included in that section did work when they were added. As you have noticed, they no longer exist. Digital Spy totally removed the threads from thier server after the links were added to Wikipedia. Does this not prove the accusations made against DS mods.
Rather than removing this content - would it not have been better for you to enter into the discussion on the talk page about how to cite these claims? Munta14:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Assuming good faith does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but that neither action nor criticism should be attributed to malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith."
There was no malicious intent there yet you have assumed that there was! - my other contributions will atest to that fact that I do not make malicious contributions. Munta16:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, You have also removed a section that is is currently being discussed in the Talk page.
Secondly, you accuse me of making a malicious edit
Thirdly you ignore my point when I pointed out that accusing people of malicious edits is against Wikipedia:Assume_good_faithMunta16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence for you not assuming good faith - "Personally it seemed libellous to be with some malicious intent" - your quote seems like prety good evidence to me. Munta16:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you have not yet responded to this evidence of you not assuming good faith. As per WP:CIVIL I would ask that you apologise for and retract this comment on my talk page and we can call this matter closed Munta10:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is obviosuly a dispute here and as per WP:CIVIL I am trying to resolve this and have given you ample opportunity to make ammends. I have suggested that you apologise for this comment yet you have refused to do so. Perhaps you would like to explain why you think "Personally it seemed libellous to be with some malicious intent" does not warrant an apology under WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faithMunta10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith - "In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it"
Civility - "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another " and "Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute."
I made an edit in good faith and yet you accuse me of making a libelous and malicious edit. This is how those two sections relate to your comment and this is why you have not been civil towards me. I've have tried to resolve this amicably yet you seem intent on making false accusation to other wiki editors. This is not what wiki is about. Munta10:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your last comment "No where have I accused you of anything, I've commented on content ("Personally it seemed libellous to be with some malicious intent"), you are construing my words."
Content cannot have intent - only users can have intent. You therefore said that I had malicious intent. And since it is a person that posts content, you are accusing me of posting libelous content. This is against WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. That is what I am seeking an apology for. I suggest you read these articles fully before treating other wiki editors with such contempt. Munta10:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dl200017:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed maintenance notices from an article, even though required changes haven't been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. --Madchester19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
Looks like it was taken care of. Again, sorry about this. I saw these warnings, they appeared to be appropriate when I looked, and I noticed you have been blocked repeatedly before. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do hope this stops soon, I'll probably end up at 3RR later today :P .. Also, if you're interested, I ordered Wonderfalls today, and when I get it, I'll tell you how it is if you wish, if not, than that's okay.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted that the U.S. airdate was noted at the bottom of the article. But usually Canadian and U.S. airdates don't conflict with each other, so that was why I edited the infobox to reflect the dual airdates. I just wanted to let you know I had the best of intentions with that edit. Thanks! --Cooleyez22909:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew: Thanks for adding the aux. note regarding Heroes airdates. I've tweaked the language slightly - I know you like your "Americaland" term, but it should be a bit more conventional. Anyway, thanks again - I have the feeling this will be an ongoing problem if Global continues to air a day early. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the article Kristen Bell, on the discussion page.
I do not know by what you mean by this..."Tomsnet has no reason to lie, Trampton please assume good faith....". We can not trust everyone!And how do we know Tomsnet is really her father,words can lie.Trampton10:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
[reply]
What exactly are you proposing be done here? I'm declining the speedy for now because it isn't clear why this should be deleted as housekeeping. Let me know what the intention is here.--Isotope2316:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Medium.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. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 17:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering I'm the only one trying to open up dialogue about it maybe you should take the advice yourself. There are many things on Wikipedia that are uncited simply because they often cannot or are common enough knowledge that they do not need to be cited. Please do not try and strong arm me, if you wish to discuss the further, use the talk page as I have been requesting (and simply been ignored) rather than rediting it back. --Zikar22:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is the matter at hand? Aside from the fact you obviously don't want something interesting and noteworthy added to the article? Oh, and you ignored me repeatedly when I asked to discuss it on the talk page (then had the audacity to tell me to discuss it on the talk page) --Zikar22:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just felt it needed a change...coz the other one was really outdated...im looking for an existing image to replace the one thats currently there. if u have any problems tell me.
-Breeana
/me was just being bored :D .. Anyway, gosh, don't you know etiquette on talk pages?! YOU MUST ADD A HEADING! And I had to like do that for you, what's with you!? /me stops the sarcasm.. Anyway, Hi Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as of a few hours ago, I took the plunge and joined the Simple Wikipedia.. This is me.. Also, we should fix up The 4400 article that I'm going to create in the next few minutes.. I really hope you want to help me, but I will not be offended if you don't xD .. Have a nice night there, you cool UK person (I LOVE THE U.K. :P ).. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 02:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
hello[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Medium.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. Shyam(T/C)01:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
i am very confused[reply]
I've now closed User:J Di's RfA on Simple English. J Di was not promoted, at 50% support. In the interests of fairness, I decided not to count votes from users which have not made any edits to the Simple English Wikipedia except to oppose the RfA, so your vote was not counted in the final result. If you have any questions at all regarding this or anything else, please direct them to my Simple English talk page. Thanks, Archer718:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on "recurring" - that was a term that had been slipping thru the edits and ought to be removed - still; "Starring", "Also Starring" and "Guest Starring" are very valid terms. If you for some reason wanna delete this details for the article I suggest you put it up for suggestion on the talk page.Pjär8022:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you just gone ahead and changed all the colours related to the Buffyverse with no discussion at all. Really you should have proposed the change and explained why it should be changed rather than just going ahead and doing it.--NeilEvans20:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no CGI in Blake's 7 - It was made in late 1970's to 1980 and all models :) If you've seen Doctor Who, the original series - not the new one, it's comparable to that. Even though the special effects are primitive it was very interesting show. Cyberia2320:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the BBC had a limited budget back in the day, but the new Dr. Who which they also make is really well done with the latest CGI technology. Cyberia2320:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the longest time I struggled with WinDVD and Microsoft Media Player using various screen cap programs but I'd always get a black box instead of the video image I wanted. I found out the problem was because DVD's play in a special video layer separate from your desktop. The trick was to force the DVD player to play video in the same layer as your desktop which hurt performance and made the movie choppy - yet I was still unable to get a capture since WinDVD refused to play without the layer active, and I updated to Media Player 11 and it's settings are different from Media Player 10 and below which allowed you to deactivate layers. I ended up using Snag It 8 - which allows you to catch images from the DVD layer using Active X. Now it works. Cyberia2321:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I changed the image you made of the Galactica entering FTL. You just had the flash showing - I thought it would be better to show both the ship and the flash at the same time.
Did you notice the goof in that particular scene? Prior to the jump, Galactica closed it's hangar pylons - even Tigh said they must be closed or they can't jump - however, in the jump scene, the hangar pylons are fully extended. Ronald D. Moore admitted the mistake in the commentary on the DVD. Cyberia2321:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Matthew, um, I really like the format of List of The 4400 episodes and I was wondering if you could do that for List of Tru Calling episodes, I mean by removing the screenshots from the list page.. I am doing this for a few reasons, 1-Screenshots can take long to load for dial-up, 2-I've been much too lazy to add correct fair use rationale and reduce size, so I'm setting all of these images for deletion.. So, while you do that, I will be setting the images for deletion and removing reference to them on the individual episode pages, just to let you know that I'll be working too :P .. If you decide to do it, drop by on my talk page :) .. Thanks alot, and I'll owe you :P .. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing against you or anything, but I dislike IM's. I don't like being bothered when I'm online. Same reason why I refuse to own a cell phone and I know too many obnoxious people who'd call me constantly if I did. Cyberia2323:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew - re: your revert at Galactica, it's not an issue. However, when did you change your mind about flags? Seems to me you used to add them to the infoboxes. (Noticed you changed your ID, by the way. Makes sense to keep the surname "dark" on the Internet.) Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy08:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm inclined to reject your assertion. Neither is registry a bounded relationship for e.g. for a starfighter. And if you look into my change before revert, you would see the string "Manufacturer(s)". -- Ylai08:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your reply: No, it is not necessarily unimportant. The fictional setting can lend the importance regarding the manufacturer in term of the narrative context, which I in fact would argue in the case of SAaB. -- Ylai09:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your patronising comment is clearly ad hominem and hence counts as a personal attack. Note that the list of examples on WP:NPA (I persume this is what you're referrring to?) is not exhuastive. Please direct your comments towards the substance and not the contributor in future- and you might also have a look at WP:TALK for your reference. All the best, Badgerpatrol10:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to get a better dictionary (although Urban Dictionary is always fun- I particularly liked def. #3 "When something bad happens to someone and you honestley dont give a piss"- surely the height of erudition??). This definition was given by the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (not a patch on urban dic in terms of reliability, of course....)
" exclamation UK HUMOROUS something you say to show that you feel no sympathy for someone who is behaving like a child: He called you a bad name, did he? Ah, diddums!".
I would say that ridiculing someone who has a fair point per WP:TALK and implying that are "behaving like a child" counts as a personal attack- wouldn't you? Please don't do it again. Badgerpatrol11:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have reverted your edit as it didn't work properly on 800x600 - it still appears with Kate and Walt on seperate lines. Number 5709:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried it on two different 800x600 monitors (different makes etc), and your version does not fit properly - the top line of "main characters" does not fit, and leaves kate on a seperate line. The same also happens to the second line of main characters. Number 5710:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Perhaps you are using small/smallest text size in your internet browswer when viewing on 800x600? This is the only reason I can think of that allows you too see the whole template without line breaks? Number 5710:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I should have said that I tested it on two different computers (which have two different monitors). I can't imagine how you can see it fine on an 800x600 unless your text size setting is smaller or smallest. As you can see on the screenshot (which also proves the resolution is 800x600), it doesn't fit.
Any suggestions on how it can be done? Perhaps setting the text size in the template to 95%? Also, I don't understand why Libby is classed as a main character whilst Rose is not... Number 5710:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly not - the 4400 template also produces broken lines (which I have now fixed). I don't think it is a good idea to make such a major change as there are quite a few other people editing the Lost template and I don't think it would go down very well! Number 5711:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your new version still breaks the top line of main characters - Jordan Collier appears on the second line on his own. I am intrigued - what combination of screen/text size do you use? The edit I made fitted on 800x600 and 1024x768! Number 5711:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid it has made it worse - now the Production, Main Characters, Elements and Miscellaneous lines are all broken. The template needs to be the maximum width allowed in Wikipedia at 800x600 to fit it all in. Number 5711:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best effort so far was this one, which could be broken after Kate as long as the left hand column can be fixed to remain the same width (putting in < br > as it is means the left hand column widens and ruins it!) Number 5711:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not even 8 hours left until the programme finale of Stargate SG-1! I can't wait :) , I should be positive it's ending, I mean, we still get those DVD movies later, plus 214 episodes is alot :P .. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 12:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You used to be Matthew Fenton right? What happened? I see this is a whole new account. And if you don't mind me asking, what happened after your request for adminship was denied? Something about vanishing.
I restored the quote to the way it was before the anon messed with it and turned it into pure speculation. The ZPM was heavily depleted in the course of the episode and this was stated, and it was not identified if the ZPM was depleted or not in the course of the episode, at the VERY least, the note that the ZPM was drained, should remain, even if the second half of the note should be removed - Count2311:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why you undid it in the List of Prison Break episodes? Season 2 contains many upcoming episodes with reviews from the Futon Critic. Moreover, the list of Lost episodes has the same warning. -- Magioladitis13:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? The summary changes vert often until we watch the episodes and for one more reason: many people add unconfirmed info and this is a goos warning before we remove it. --Magioladitis13:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chech this: Category for lists of upcoming episodes of a television series that are planned to be filmed/aired in the near future, and have been officially announced by either the production company or the television station.. So it is exactly our case. -- Magioladitis13:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me it's clear that if such a warning should be both in Lost and Prison Break or in none. This warning have been made exactly for listing all the upcoming episodes. I'll put the warning exactly before the upcoming episodes just for you to show. Please tell me your opinion. Friendly, Magioladitis14:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you in general believe that this tag is uneccessary or only for the specific shows? I think it's a way to know which show are running this season. I see that are many shows tagged with this "warning" -- Magioladitis14:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. Of course, i still haven't convinced 100% what it's the best to do but at least now what the things you describe make more sense to me :) -- Magioladitis14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew: Just so you know, I've restored the note about Michael Shanks' voice to Unending. While we're generally trying to avoid trivia, that particular note is an opportunity to illustrate some of the ways the show's creators add "in-jokes" to the program. The text is worded in a way that doesn't speculate as to the intent, but instead allows the reader to come to his or her own conclusions. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy17:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, can you change the image of Baltar reading the note to an image of Lampkin. A few people are requesting it be changed or an image of him added to the article. He technically was the main focus of that episode. Cyberia2305:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think the YouTube link was allowed; that's why I removed it the first time. The IP re-added it not too long after I had got rid of it. I'm glad you removed it this time. Acalamari20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. my bad. But should Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 3) article be changed to reflect this? It's kinda weird that canada airs before US, this being a US prog. Well, if you are sure, than okay, because I dont live in the states, nor canada. =)
When I edited Primeval and changed the original run 'last_aired' to today (March 17, 2007), you changed it back with the reason "Still present, series two has been ordered".
I disagree. While series two has been ordered, and this is to be noted, the last_aired needs to be changed. However this is my own personall opinion.
If it was noted that a second series is coming in 2008, Wouldn't it be better if it was changed? Scottie Too Hottie721:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering... what made you decide that this article satisfies WP:N? I still can't see any references that show that ""A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject."
If the episode is the source, is it possible to give a citation for that? Either who published it on DVD, or network-and-date-of-transmission? I don't feel good about having nothing that looks like a citation - if I were to invent an episode of a TV show you had never heard of, and inserted it as a Wikipedia article, how would you go about verifying it? --Alvestrand03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I apologise for reverting 4 times. I hadnt realised I'd got to 4. I certainly don't want to get into an edit was about this. I will change Crossroads, Eldorado etc back, but after that I will leave it. I do feel a bit victimised the way you took the ones I listed as examples and then changed them to suit you. These had been happily at past tense for a while and it is totally unnecessary to change them. --Berks10517:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you ever listen to anyone? A neutral editor has come in and suggested you cool it. Instead you ignore them and carry on regardless. That is no way to behave on Wikipedia. --Berks10517:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, I'd like to apologise if at any point I seemed agressive or rude over at The Vicar of Dibley. It certainly wasn't my intention (I'm more interested in not letting this spiral out of control), and I didn't mean to insinuate anything regarding your membership of WP:IS NOT WAS. Happy editing! Farosdaughter18:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually its not because as I was going through the page I got a good chunk of the story spoiled. But w/e I'm not going to get into an arugement or edit war over this.--88wolfmaster 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there was an Ori ship lost during the fight when it got hit by the Kawoosh of the supergate activating. ALthough it wasn't from being destroyed by enemy fire, it was destroyed during the battle. Crad001020:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please ban this user[23] from Wikipedia? He keeps editing the airdate of the Grey's Anatomy episode My Favorite Mistake!! Now, I know for a fact that the correct airdate of that episode is March 29, 2007. However, the user I am referring to keeps editing the airdate to March 22, 2007, William Shatner's birthday!! So please ban that user from Wikipedia forever so that I don't have anymore problems, OK? Thank you very much. AdamDeanHall20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want proof that the ship has missiles? Hello, we have seen it fire missiles multiple times. We have seen that they are visibly set up in a VLS setup as they launch from flush points in the hull rather then from missile launchers. This is common knowledge as of the very start of season 2 for SGA. Alyeska07:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove subcategories of Category:Television program cancellations by year from articles. This scheme is used for all programs regardless of the reason for the series end. Per the category description:
This is a set of subcategories of television programs by the year of cancellation, based on the broadcast date of the final original episode. These programs are listed regardless of whether the cancellation decisions were made by the broadcasters or the producers.
One more thing, if you feel the category scheme's name is misleading, and would prefer something like "Category:Television program series ends by year", I'd recommend making that suggestion at WP:CFD. Dugwiki15:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew replies -
It matters not if the category's creator set that as its goal, obviously that goal is disputed - and - has no consensus backing it, to conclude: do not reinsert without a consensus and a verifiable source it was cancelled, barring that you'll more then likely be reverted, again. Matthew 15:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The goal is not disputed. It is clearly part of the overall scheme of including years of establishment/disestablishment of entities and works as category tags. If you feel the scheme doesn't have consensus, please feel free to direct me to a link indicating the dispute. Also, if you feel the category scheme should be altered, please feel free to bring it up at WP:CFD.
Aargh... you out-typed me on the SU page. (Thanks, BTW.) I've made a few more tweaks, since you caught most of what I was changing anyways. Bad title, eh? --Ckatzchatspy09:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to revert... the italics code doesn't do anything in the O4 template, and the older text implies that there are other series that weren't produced by MGM. (Reword as you like, but please avoid the old MGM text as part of the first sentence.) --Ckatzchatspy09:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, something new would be nice - especially a new storyline! I think they've kind of lost their way over the past few years - the show needs to get back to what it's really good at, which is the "small" stories as in the earlier seasons. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy09:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know "both of" (they are actually one and the same...) these guidelines. Which doesn't preclude my disagreeing. Especially seeing as your correction introduced a typo and a bigger inconsistency: if you intend to fix the tense, at least do it across the board. Slapping cleanup templates on a FAC when you are in the process of discussing with the main contributor is not very constructive either, which I why I swept it off. Circeus14:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it is your duty to make sure your edits don't make the article worse. And knowingly making tense inconsistent inside a sentence does just that. Circeus15:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you've had your username changed. It would be helpful to others who have come across you in the past to make a small note of this on your userpage somewhere in the interests of transparency and accountability, seeing as there are RFA's and RFC's under your old account. Furthermore logged actions (not contribs) have not been transferred from your old account, so it is important these are made available. ed g2s • talk16:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the DVD's bought from Amazon like it says there only 5 episodes not 6 yea it is a 2 hour but still only 5 openings and 5 credits so 5 episodes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leftkidney (talk • contribs) 09:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
So you liked the ending? I dunno if I cared much for it. I was surprised when some anon user added all the unsourced spoilers to Crossroads Part II a few days ago and I deleted them as nonsense - I thought waht he said was going to happen was rediculous but then, HE WAS RIGHT! Damn... All I say is that Season Four has some serious explaining to do. Tigh was one of the last people I'd think was a Cylon. But I dunno, All Along the Watchtower was kinda weird... and Starbuck's sudden return was kinda cheesy IMO. We'll we have a who frakkin year to wait to see what happens. I'm probably going to refine the plot for the episode later how it's written now sucks - I'll do it once all the hype dies down. I can't believe how many people scrambled to get the last word in last night after the show. I just sat back and watched the chaos unfold. Cyberia2319:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you may be right - perhaps they are high beings of some sort, but what I found strange is during the opera house dream there were six white tapestries. I thought when D'anna saw the Final Five there were five tapestries - one for each white robed figure. Why were there six? COuld we have a 13th Cylon. I think the 12th is Roslin (she's sharing dreams with Six and Eight) or maybe Starbuck, but I'm thinking we'll find out there is a 13th as well, perhaps maybe Baltar after all. Baltar's hair and beard makes him looks like Jesus Christ, he now has worshipers who believe in him and follow him, he's gotta be something else that he doesn't realize yet. Maybe he's the anti-christ or something, but he's not human. Cyberia2319:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the BSG movie is supposed to air this fall on Sci Fi. I heard a rumor that it may deal with what happened to Starbuck from when she disappears to when she returns. Cyberia2320:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I removed Starbuck because the image wasn't showing up for me, I thought someone in the history deleted the image link but left the thumbnail frame so I axed it. If you can fix it then put it back I guess. Cyberia2300:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use Mozilla Firefox. I only keep IE because, well Windoze throws a fit if you try an delete it, and I need it for updates from Microcrap as they'll only install with Active X and IE, which doesn't work with Mozilla. Starbuck shows up now. For some reason the tag started with two "{" instead of "[[" which was probably why it wasn't showing up. I updated the article, yeah it's long as shit now, but Starbuck is there. Saying she comes back isn't a spoiler IMO, but too many people are saying that she's definitely a Cylon and nothing in the show says that. Not even RDM. All he says was Starbuck was coming back in the end. I'm not fully buying that Anders, Tory, Tigh and Tyrol are Cylons - they're probably from Earth since Tyrol says it was music from "my childhood", and that like your assumption of Baltar, maybe they're some kind of higher beings who've forgotten their past and are just now awakening memories of who they really are. Cyberia2308:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't engage in discussion stacking[25]. Our decision process is substantially disrupted when people use side channels to slant discussions in their favor. It's especially bad that you are doing so with such an inaccurate and inflammatory characterization of Ed's actions. There is no rational basis for your claim that Ed's proposed language would completely prohibit screenshots from Wikipedia. Please be more considerate in the future. --Gmaxwell16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your opinion on the boxes around the quotes; but there is nothing wrong with them. I also don't agree that there is too much white space; I think it helps separate the seasons a bit better. Please don't use your opinions are wiki guidelines. FrankWilliams16:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of web users use IE not Firefox; it seems silly to worry about a formatting issue that occurs with small percentage of Firefox browsers. BTW: what is MOS? FrankWilliams16:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can go to : http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp where stats for web browsers are listed. There stats are based on actual usage not what comes pre-installed on systems. Also, the average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers. Not saying IE is better just that most people use it. FrankWilliams17:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol, he brings this argument into the discussion quoting that page ? Firefox and friends are at 36.8 % of the browser usage according to w3schools. That's well over 1/3 of the users dearest Frank :D That's not an amount any webpage editor should ignore, and definetly not wikipedia. (i'm guessing that the average FF usage under Wikipedia editors is even much higher than this average, and then we DEFINETLY shouldn't ignore it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that a quasi-slapstick movie starring Corin Nemec in which a character is named Parker Lewis and says the line "I just can't win," leaves any speculation as to whether or not there is intent to reference Nemec's show "Parker Lewis Can't Lose"? Do you honestly question that link?Conn, Kit13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert the change I made? It was much better, and you didn't even say why. --SilvaStorm
Excuse me? Mine's crap?! Mine had more to it, it actually showed a character and wasn't just a statue. And what are you talking about, it does have a fair use rationale - TV-screenshot. --SilvaStorm
Yo, I'm too lazy to get onto Instant Messaging right now, and I just wanted to say that I will not be on the computer as much starting this Saturday-31 March.. So, if you need to get a hold of me, please use Wikipedia User Talk, or my E-Mail.. Have a great day! Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been in the article history for a long time. It's not a big deal to me, I was just repopulating the category to how it was before the botched CfD.~ZytheTalk to me!10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great copyediting, but be careful to use American English for an American-based television show article, rather than traditionally British English terms like 'dialled' and 'manoeuvre'. Personally, I prefer those words as well, but the manual of style dictates otherwise. Just a thought. Cheers! -- HuntsterT • @ • C15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I understand. Not a big deal; I catch what I can. I'm a born American and I still use British spellings in my personal work. -- HuntsterT • @ • C16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that I disagree with your edit summary reasoning. You said that having images on the left is "silly", this is something I have never heard or seen in practice in any other article, is there some strange policy? And I believe I had clear reason, three images in close sucession on the same side looks "silly" in my opinion. I'm not reverting it yet, I'm just curious as to why you think it was wrong. Gran216:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Matthew,
You wrote on my user page that notices and comments such as the trivia-notice are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. I don't see how. Can you explain that to me?
The Steven Soderbergh probably contains too much trivia. Nobody is arguing with that. So, now consensus has already been reached about the fact that the article contains too much trivia, why do we still need the template?
More important, why do we have to tell that to the general reader? If you look at the Steven Soderbergh article, hardly anything on that page is presented more prominently than the fact that that article contains a trivia section. Is that not something that would be more appropriate to discuss on the article's talk page? Johan Lont12:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, didn't see the replies. However, I'm in agreement with ed_g2s in the discussions you mentioned (and as you can see on my talk page, I consulted him about it first). I know it doesn't seem fashionable to say it but I think that the pictures add nothing and so by FUC shouldn't be there. ...adam... (talk • contributions) 23:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woah tiger - I'm not being hot headed (although thats the first thing someone who is being hot headed says), I apologised for the slightly hasty removal and then expressed my opinion. There is no edit war (unless someone else is warring now without my knowing), I didn't revert your revert or anything of the sort - I replied on the talk page. Also, out of curiosity - where does it say that consensus overrides policy? (no sarcasm there - that was the least sarcastic wording I could find of that question.) ...adam... (talk • contributions) 23:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats cool. I'm still pretty new at this thing. I understand what you say about consensus - however, I think I lie in that minority. I don't actually like the policy and think that the images should stay, but I'm a big believer in free content and following the policy. I have absolutely no intention of fighting this issue though - this seems such a massive issue that there's bound to be a policy change sooner or later that will make this gray area black or gray. Thanks for the clarification though, I will save the whole of those conversations for some bedtime reading and digest them properly. ...adam... (talk • contributions) 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."
So I have linked to a mainstream news article found on google news that indicates that this is indeed a fact that it has been leaked. So now Wikipedia is not linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work. I assume we don't have a problem now.--Barockoiiu02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that worse? An organized table should be better than a long list. and if the objection is because of the use of flagicons, fine, I choose to use them to break up the list.--88wolfmaster 21:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey Matthew, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support and I do intend to run again eventually. I'll see you on MSN no doubt ;) Majorly(o rly?)02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the addition of the "obnoxious" template to multiple articles; clearly it has no consensus for the insertion within articles, secondly it is now standardized, thirdly it has no direct purpose nor is it actually compliant/backed by any policy (you'll have to do better then appending "per WP:NOT", etc). I'd advise you to get consensus to insert that template within articles, it is disputed. Matthew17:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry no - you aren't a vigilante of Wikipedia - you say all of those things yet the discussion is still going on. When a page is nominated for deletion - do you delete the page first and delete the links to that page before it's actually discussed and agreed upon - no, that's absolute crap and you should know better.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?)17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did not mean to misrepresent your comments and I have not - pointing out a flaw wouldn't be misrepresenting. However, I will say that I am unsure of which edit yo urefer to when you say "Your edit to pages insertting that templates". If you mean the first time - then yes, by that logic you would delete the article and links to the article before the consensus to delete was reached (and return the article if the conensus was keep). If you mean the second time (after you removed them) - then the comment above applies.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?)17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, your other supporter Peregrine agreed on the new format. This new format also got the list featured status. Since an admin didn't find that TV.com meets WP:RS, there is no reason to remove them. BIGNOLE (Contact me)21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize about assuming Tom was an admin. I thought only admins could do the "approved" stage. I wasn't aware that they had it set up like GAC. As for the "you're", I was meaning the universal "you", but, you specifically haven't gone to those pages for clean up. That isn't your job, I know that, but creating almost 100 more isn't going to solve the problem with the other pages. As for the Prod Codes, I'll search for a better source, and if I cannot find one then I will remove that column of information. BIGNOLE (Contact me)21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've ignored it. But I do see where I misinterpreted what you were saying, or I think I see. You were calling the seasonal pages "disgusting" (if true, then I agree). If you couldn't find any prod code with RS, then I'll go ahead and remove them. As for the images. Since I removed the plots, for article size purposes, I figured I should remove the images. Also, almost all of the images have Kryptonsite on them. I plan (I still have another 3 weeks of spring semester) to go through my DVDs and screen capture the same images again, so that they don't have kryptonsite on them. Also, it's much easier to prove fair use for 22 images in one article, than it is for 127 images. The season pages need better formatting. There are 127 episodes, as of right now, and even you have to admit that you won't be able to provide enough substance, reliably, for every one. I'm thinking that those seasonal companion books that Craig Burn, and Paul Simpson, created will probably have production information in them. I don't know for sure because I've never actually come across one personally. BIGNOLE (Contact me)22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I didn't want to be the one being that bold, after getting into it with other editors who are more spam-tolerant than I. --Orange Mike16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Matthew19:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
I wasn't spamming, and I think you are extraordinarily rude for throwing that term at me on my User Talk page. I didn't post the link, but when I looked at it, it seemed to me that the interview with Hatch nicely augmented the article, which is why I put it back. I remind you of WP:LAWYER and WP:OWN, and request you to not plaster my page with any more false, inappropriate, and unfortunately-unremovable-according-to-Wikipedia-rules warnings.
Spammers are evil scum, and I am literally trembling with fury that you would call me that vile name. How would you like it if I called you a motherfucker? You wouldn't like that, so don't call me a spammer.
They aren't inappropriate, they aren't commercial spam, none of them are advertising, every single one of them is relevant to the article, and what you're doing is personally insulting to me and vandalism to the article. I'm requesting adminstrative review. -- Davidkevin20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Irishguy. I've restored the links, except for one which may be far-fetched. Care to explain why you removed them, as they are obviously not spam? --KZTalk• Contribs22:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no problem, that is what friends are for. Anyway, again, I have no desktop with internet to use, except at school (I'm borrowing my Dad's notebook presently, but at home, I have to use my crippled internet with my Handheld, with NO keyboard, and I must use the stylus :X ).. Anyway, hey, um, I could not get AIM for the Handheld, but could we IM with MSN temporarily? My MSN is my AIM screen-name plus @hotmail.com.. How're you doing? Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 21:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hey, also, I am going to see a movie soon, so I'll see you later of your day.. Also, check it out,my userpage is now a redirect to my talk page. It's so much better, anyway, see you later... Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has become aware to me that you have been deleting some of my Battlestar Galactica screenshots. I understsand that you may feel that some of the picture are unnecessary, but all of these picture are there to enhance the quality of the articles I am adding. I, as always will not load articles full of screenshots, but I will only add pictures where they are more helpfull in explaining the information of an article than mere words. If you believe they are redundant, please make your arguement with me instead of deleting them. Sith Penguin Lord01:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep deleting the updated picture of Andrew van de Kamp ? I posted and chance some of the other changes like making some text´s bold... I mean quit being so annoying or give me a good reason not to post that picture of Andrew ..? Darth Yotho00:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you like this ??? because you think it's crap it has to be deleted. It's a promo image made by ABC to portray both Andrew and the actor Shawn ...
As I read your talk-page, I can see you have quite a habit of pulling these kind of stunts ..
I thought you may be interested, the edit war you were in a few days ago with an Anon that resulted in his and nearly your blocking for 24 hours. it turns out that the account that went and started reverting after he was blocked, ALSO belongs to him. I had a checkuser run after PGLanier logged in and started to revert the edits as well almost immediately after the 3RR block, they confirm it was him Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PGLanier. Just keep your eyes open if you get into an edit war with the Anon again, I've posted a warning on his talk page about tag-teaming and i'll be watching him to see if does it again - Count2301:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the backronym of Phaser is from Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Fact Files and (I think) the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, which I think are all canon enough to mention on the Phaser page. If possible, use my talk page to inform me of your decision. --Prototype 01 11:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove only those I added and left those that were already in place (e.g. Caretaker (Voyager episode)). It's much cleaner this way, instead of putting it in the infobox, which is stuffed with too much information... Can you give me the url where it shows this consensus? Nestra (talk • contribs) 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
By the way, this user is annoying me.. He/she KEEPS without provocation, changing Summer Roberts to Summer Roberts-Cohen.. I do not get this user, there is NO proof she even changed her name :X ..Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you contesting my prods? I've been the one doing the research. There are no sources; it will only ever be a plot summary. The articles do not now, nor will they ever meet the expectations of WP:EPISODE. Jay3218321:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, objecting on those grounds is not cool. Insisting that every episode should have an article is really bad and not helpful. Most single episode articles need to be deleted, but people just won't quit their whining. Jay3218322:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the primary editor. I have expert knowledge on the subject. The articles need to be deleted and you need to get out of the way. I wish these could be good articles, but they can't. Jay3218322:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was very unimpressed with both of the later TZ resurrections. They seemed to focus a lot more on horror and shock than the juxtaposition of ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. Personally, I've got my Tivo set up to grab all the TZ episodes, but delete any of the "new" ones unwatched. Travisl21:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew - just so you know, I've reverted your deletion of the header in the Jericho character list, changing "Former" to "Deceased". This is only because deleting without reorganizing leaves that new section disorganized. That aside, if you want to realphabetize while getting rid of the "Deceased" section, I'll support you. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy21:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I nominated Kzrulzuall for sysop was because we knew each other in real life. Sp3001 was created since the computer in the library we go to fails to be able to use my JavaScripts without freezing the computer. Being with me at the time, he created the account for me as the IP was blocked by VSmith at that time. --The preceding comment was signed byUser:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 10:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creating some sort of standard to adhere to is what creates continuity. if you have a problem with the titles I used why don't you suggest a different title that is broad enough to encompass several articles.--88wolfmaster 01:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
working on converting it at this point - looking for assistance in creating the appropriate template form to do this. SkierRMH18:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from the assisting party: Are templates required also for talk pages? Can't they just categorize the talk page as article needing cast? HoverfishTalk18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop deleting my pictures on the List of Reimagined Battlestar Galactica locations. If you wish to delete them, post something on the discussion, but just don't delete them. Sith Penguin Lord22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look on the main page of Medium, I source FOUR websites that Medium has ordered six more episodes, which means May 16 won't be the finale after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I added a link to the computer game Provocator which you removed because I used the word 'Clearly' ( "Clearly inspired by Battlestar Galactica") and deemed it 'fanpinion' !
Please take the time to look at the Provocator page. Once you've read about the game and seen the screen shots, I defy you to claim it isn't "Clearly" relevant to the list of BattleStar Games!
If the list must be of official BSG games only, then I'll add a 'Games inspired by BattleStar' although I feel this is unnecessary.
I've reverted this edit, the NBC, IMDb and TV.com links are to be grouped as external links, they're not sources (in the case of IMDb and TV.com they are not valid sources as they are not verifiable), the NBC link is a valid source but the actual link contains no source information used. Also fan-sites are not valid sources or in most cases valid links, and Wikipedia is not a links database so fan sites do not belong here. Matthew09:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken I was stating a source/reference, I have seen this in literally many articles here on Wikipedia, so saying that a reference site not be added is ridiculous, it was not an external fan page. I also think external links on a TV list episodes page is inapporate.--Migospia11:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and as I have stated, they're not valid sources as per Wikipedia's gudielines/policies. All articles should be sourced, but only to reliable sources - fan sites and user submitted websites are not reliable, they have little editorial oversight. Matthew11:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said it is a valid source it talks about Medium episodes which have proven to be valid, I have seen websites here used as sources that should not, what is your problem with this site to be used as a reference although the reference is vaild and more importantly it is imporant to the article it is being used.--Migospia15:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it has published/copied information which is reliable, it is still a fan-site at the end of the day and hence unreliable unless it has some editorial oversight and a long history of providing verifiable history. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources; which I'd already linked to. Addendum: I have no further interest in communicating with you until you have read Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. Matthew15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have to get a third party in here because you are not understanding me or what this is it is confusing what you are trying to do--Migospia08:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC) They are not external links but sources at least for when I edit the page as well as others, it is just inapporate I believe[reply]
Thank you for your help on my RfA. I appreciate the constructive comments. Although I realize that my RfA was pre-mature, I was impressed at the kindness of the wikipedia community. Happy editing, and thanks again for your help! --Trumpetband22:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason you feel the urge to act in a rude manner? I know very well what 3RR is and you know as well as I do I haven't violated it. Given your current behaviour, I'd strongly suggest you review this.--Kamikaze16:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey... sorry it took a while to get back to you. Yes, it is more interesting - I find I enjoy the show more when they are addressing the conspiracy and the ramifications of terrorism. I'm not big on the rather artificial plot devices such as Dale/Skylar, the fire in town, Gray Anderson etc. What about you? --Ckatzchatspy22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to stop what you are doing can we get a third party, because like I have said it is not being used as a fan site or external site but a reference site because that is exactly what it is and references are good to state and list, I have seen it in almost every episode TV list on wiki so how could it not fit into the guidelines, what is your problem against it?--Migospia14:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last time till I try and find someone else to come into this because you are not stating any logic, and because I linked to tv.com and imdb.com do you think I run those websites too? geez you must have forgot to read my header of being nice on my talk page--Migospia14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what, exactly, is there to discuss Matthew? You clearly see this as a personal war, you were never involved in this image issue until you saw I was working on the article and your snidey comments about "winning" prove it. Why should I engage with someone determined to needle me as much as possible who doesn't even care about the image? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this thread I have posted in regards to your queries. Delete the info and links if the information is proved incorrect when the episodes air. I have provided that page with info I received exclusively - I believe that was a VERY generous thing to do and the references linking to the articles that information was posted from is only fair. If you don't like the site - don't post the exclusive info. Thank you, VisitEureka.net 19:04, 23 April 2007 (BST).
I only removed the tag after i deleted the trivia. Someone keeps putting the trivia back in, over and over. I actually agree with you that the article should not contain trivia. However, i'm going one step further and saying that trivia is not suitable for wikipedia because it either fails notability or it's an unverified claim (like the Watchman thing). dposse15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I dont want to start an argument here but from the catch-22 discussion page it seems that people dont want such 'Dramatic' images that may 'Spoil' the program, the image may be more appropriate futher down in the article after the Spoiler Warnings.
Cheers
R0ck1t19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i just read an article on Triva Sections, but i still think there should be a section in Lost episode articles that has shot bulleted list of relavent facts (As in previous episodes). And i understand about the image but as clearly stated in the article disscusion it is clear that people do not want that image up, i see no problem with my image contribution and i uploaded after yours had been removed by another member. For these reasons i feel that this image is unnapropriate at the top of the article and would ask if you do are not satisfied with the alternative i supplied that you should upload one that you may see more suitable.
I would be grateful if you consider my request and review the Catch-22 discussion page.
Cheers,
R0ck1t20:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that YOUR opinion may be that that moment was significant but if i quote you here "please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page." The 'community census' is obviously that people do not find the Charlie Dead image appropriate, for this reason i would be grateful if you replace the previous image or use the Lost title screen and make a suggestion for a better image, i should then be able to upload it,
On a further not i spotted you added the Trivia tag to 'The Brig' as the Trivia article states Trivia sections may be used in establishing a new article and are therfore appropriate for upcoming episodes, otherwise i now agree with you on aired episodes however.
Thanks once again, R0ck1t20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just read your comment unfortunatley there is no appropriate moment when you can see both of them together, this was infact my first choice. Sorrey that is of course excluding the photo found in the jungle but this seems to unrelavent to me.R0ck1t20:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good shot of desmond tackling charlie that seems 'dramatic' enough to me i'll upload it now and add a link to the discussion page, if you like it or people give a positive respose feel free to add it in or tell me to. If you are still not satisfied feel free to sugest again.R0ck1t20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (Oh and BTW its complaining about the size of this page you may want to archive some stuff)[reply]
Having had problems with you before, under a previous now retired user name, it is sad but predictable that once again you have used your bullying, arrogant tactics. After I change the tense on Astronauts, amongest other edits, you then go through my very small edit history and change every page I have edited. There is no clear evidence you are right, but there is no point in trying to argue as you just bully people. You assume the is/was refers to whether the programme exists; thats wrong, its refers to whether its airs. Most ordinary people (ie outside Wikipedia) would refer to a former programme as "was", but as a grammar Nazi you insist on your way being right. Wikipedia would be far better without you. Once again I will retire from Wikipedia, I had hoped to come back, but your attitude reminds me why I left. You should not follow people, its harrasment to look at every page someone has edit to change one thing. --BritTV18:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have doubts you have looked for any evidence, and they wouldn't be any. The point is in general conversation most people would refer to a finished programme in past tense. To say "is" sounds stupid, and I think the amount of users and IP addresses that change many pages (only to be reverted by you) reflects this. But I will let you win, as I really can't be bothered to fight. The fact that you saw it as necessary to put [sic] shows how pathetic you are. Why was it necessary. Our conversation was about edit changes, not my grammar! --BritTV19:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do consider my edits constructive, I consider yours to be the opposite. You, and many others I admit, make Wikipedia look pathetic. Previously I worked happily and unopposed on many, many articles, until you came along. And regarding Arthur's Treasured Volumes, only a few minutes remains, yet you consider this enough do you! Your arrogance and general attitude amaze me, and as a final comment I only hope one day that you actual realise you are not good for Wikipedia and retire yourself. Then everyone would be better off. --BritTV19:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When will ABC reveal their 2007-2008 schedule and pickups?
Exactly when will ABC reveal their 2007-2008 schedule and pickups? It's hard to tell which programs have been renewed and which programs have been cancelled. AdamDeanHall20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Matthew, I noticed your notices about the ANI discussion on fancruft and the AfD on Kept Man, and I wanted to point out that posting such notices on unrelated talk pages may be a violation of WP:CANVASS. I understand why you would be concerned about the fate of TV episode pages, and I tend to agree that they should be allowed to remain on Wikipedia, but I don't feel that cross-posting on other TV show talk pages about Kept Man is quite proper. I feel though Ned Scott should have left a note to this effect on your talk page rather than place charges of vote-stacking on each TV episode talk page. --Kyoko21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The standard spelling on Wikipedia is "encyclopedia", so it should be used in templates, I think. However, if you can point out why it was spelled "encyclopaedia" (in a cleanup template), and why it is spelled "encyclopedia" in all other templates, I will accept. --NetRolller 3D10:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's widely accepted to spell that word as "encyclopedia" here (on Wikipedia, remember, not Wikipaedia, and every other template spells it that way, so there is a general consensus on "encyclopedia"), so it serves no purpose to stand out. Also, a little bug of the template: the first line isn't bold. --NetRolller 3D10:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to keep the infobox in, for it myself, I was going to put an image in. Can't we have the infobox in as a catchall for spacecraft and sci-fi vehicles? I think I might just revert it for the time being till we come to a consensus.Douglasnicol01:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the infobox says 'Spacecraft' in the edit template, but it's perfectly sufficient for this purpose, and is more efficient than using a seperate infobox that will basically just duplicate most of what is in the spacecraft one. If you look at most instances of the use of the spacecraft one there are many entries in it that are not fully utilised. Douglasnicol13:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For petes sake, now you've removed the bulk of the entry. I was considering trying to make an infobox but you seem to be downright impossible to work with. Douglasnicol13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any objections to me then modifying the spacecraft one, taking out what isn't relevant and maybe adding in somethings that are? Douglasnicol13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've not submitted it yet, "Propulsion" doesn't sound quite right for a land vehicle, yet in the realms of scifi we have all sorts of power apart from internal combustion including nuclear, gas turbine etc, but propulsion still doesn't sound right. Douglasnicol13:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem quite right either, maybe propulsion and power can be merged into one category in land vehicles, covering the style of engine, after all on a spacecraft like the Enterprise the propulsion would be warp engines and the power would be the matter/anti matter mix, there's not as much need for that on a land vehicle entry. However, I will add a chassis entry which shows whether a vehicle is wheeled, tracked, hover, even legged. Douglasnicol13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the template. At the same time I've also deleted the old one from the Space:1999 Moonbuggy article and substituted the new one. I will be putting images of these craft in soon (handy when you have the two seasons on DVD), especially on the Laser Tank entry as they are three distinct designs. I've also moved both the Buggy and tank from the category of Space:1999 spacecraft and started a new category. Oops, meant to sign my comment.... Douglasnicol15:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit, the max speed entry is missing, whenever I add it, there's always some odd character showing up at the top of the page. Any ideas? Douglasnicol15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what's wrong here...I put in a screen grab, the image is Moonbuggy.jpg, using the standard image insertion doesn't work. How come? Douglasnicol16:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, with the use of PowerDVD, I've completed the set up of this page, what do you think. I hope to get more information on it as well to pad it out a bit. Douglasnicol20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is true but irrelevant. We're not talking about a few dissenters gathering in an out-of-the-way place, we're talking about dozens of people gathering on a high-traffic and high-profile noticeboard. I would prefer to resolve this amicably, but please do be aware that I will take any steps necessary to prevent copyright violations from being added. In the case of fair-use images, we are far exceeding minimal use by use of images simply for "labelling" episodes. That's clear decorative use. SeraphimbladeTalk to me11:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting theory. Might you be able to tell me how IAR permits you to ban someone from editing a page? As to copyright law, couple things there. First, I imagine you'll find I know it pretty well, I'm often asked for assistance in selection and drafting of software licenses, and have done so on more than one occasion. Secondly, Wikimedia's fair-use restrictions are deliberately far more restrictive than copyright law, but even under fair use, comment or commentary on the work in question is essential to a fair-use defense. Even the law frowns heavily on decorative fair use. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you are aware that by your theory, IAR perfectly well allows me to ignore your "community ban"? Discussion has taken place, spurred by Ryulong's actions, but that's largely irrelevant. This is an issue the Foundation has spoken on, and when they set rules there's no ignoring them. You can ask them to change them, if you'd like me to help you contact them I'd be happy to, but until and unless you convince them so it is as it is. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Foundation did not specifically say "You may not use fair-use images in lists of episodes". And indeed, in exceptional cases, such an image may be acceptable, or it may be appropriate to have a single picture of the series or its logo at the introduction to the list. However, fair-use images as "labels" are not by any definition a minimal use of such images. The episodes may be identified by name instead. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. It is not solely my opinion that we should use free content whenever possible and non-free content at an absolute minimum level, it is that of the Foundation (though for reference, I am behind the Foundation's opinion on that matter 100%). In this case, the fair-use images are decorative, which is a clearly prohibited use. The images themselves are not discussed in the article which uses them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got the burden of proof in the wrong place. It is not incumbent upon someone who wishes to remove a fair-use image to show it violates fair-use policy, it is incumbent upon the person who wishes to include it to show unequivocally that its inclusion is legitimate by both the law and our fair-use policies. You have not yet offered a single affirmative argument as to why the use of these images are not decorative. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A vote on an out-of-the-way subpage is not an appropriate substitute for the required individual fair-use rationales, nor can it override the Foundation or our fair-use policy based upon their ruling. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through some of them. They make no difference. The law, and the rules of the Foundation, supercede even a unanimous consensus on Wikipedia, even if one thousand editors here unanimously agree. Fair-use images must be kept to a minimum, period. Using them as "labels" is not keeping them to a minimum, when it's obvious that the article can exist without them (and indeed, when such versions exist in version history.) SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something doesn't become true by repeating it often enough. I have most certainly presented a legal argument (one of the pillars of fair use in the law is comment or criticism on the copyrighted work). It is most certainly possible that a judge would consider the list to do so on the work "as a whole", but it's just as well possible that he'd consider the lack of comment on the scene or screenshot to militate against fair use. More importantly, however, I have most certainly noted how it fails the Foundation's resolution, for two reasons. Firstly, while we are permitted a narrow exemption policy under the Foundation ruling, these images fail rule 1 (they are replaceable by a free equivalent, a plain text label, or if you wish a graphical label, perhaps a free-drawn, stylized graphic of the episode or show's title you would release under GFDL), rule 3 (the use is excessive and gratuitous), rule 8 (the images are used for decoration, and are not absolutely essential), and rule 9 ("All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum." (emphasis mine)). Secondly, the resolution still and yet states that such use must be "minimal", and that we shouldn't use a fair-use image except when we absolutely have no choice. In this case, we have a choice. It may not be a choice you like, but they're pretty clear on that-if there is a free option, we take the free option, and that's the end of that story. Now, there is your reasoning, once again, and I hope that's clear enough for you to see it's there. On the other hand, I've seen no reasoning from you as to how the images do pass legal muster, the Foundation resolution, or our fair-use policy, you've simply kept repeating that they do. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The measure is excessive and in some cases outright counterproductive. I've copied your note on your talk page to mine. Let's see if any others join in. --Kizor01:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should no that Nick, Chaz Beckett and sever al users are arbitrially deleting images from episode lists of various shows before a consensus on this issue has been decided. Nick has actually blocked the Lost epsidoe list. I think this vandalsim should be reported to the wikipedia administration and that they should be banned if they continue in there behavior annoynmous 03:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC
So you know, the Manual of Style states it doesnt matter on the commas in the dates, as the users date display preferences will override anyway MOS on dates so the reverts over commas or not seem, well, maybe a little silly :) -Mask?08:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not quite like that. We dont want us specific dates. This isnt the us wiki, its the english. Thats why we have that software tweak, so US, UK, AU and all other english speakers dont editwar over date formats. -Mask?09:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh! hadnt even thought of the fork issue! You may want to bring that up on the MoS talkpage to add that bit into the official policy. Good catch. -Mask?09:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well i'm not surprised, i was expecting this day for the longest time. I don't agree, but i won't take it to arbcom either. I'm already involved in an ISA wheelchair issue that just landed me at Arbcom, and I'm not looking for another case. Still it's a shame. the images clearly improve the articles in my point of view, within USA rules. And I don't see why we should scare out of this without ever receiving an official complaint from a copyright owner. The EDP is flawed and too limiting towards image usage in wikipedia. Wikipedia has gotten too scared simply because it has gotten big. In affect we should use our power to stand up for what we believe in. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've personally diverted my real editing attention more towards WP:SPACE recently, and I've seen Ned getting more involved with the organization of Wikiprojects in general, like banners, council etc. It seems WP:TV is rapidly losing it's project organizers attention. Soon it's talk pages will be full of talk, and no one actually listening and caring anymore I think. And I'm starting to not care: the topic has become too much of a warzone for me to still be satisfying to organize the templates, categories, stubs and wikiproject guidelines.... It's sad. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised you added two season four episodes, after reverting several of them the last few months. Can you explain to me why FutonCritic is a more reliable source than many of the others out there? Travisl15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was unintentional. The edit was a broad revert to once again pull the images out after a WP:POINT edit of someone adding them back in against policy. The spelling fix just got caught in there. On a side note, I gave the link to the image policies on various wikipedia's over on WT:NONFREE -Mask?17:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding for me (re:As Time Passes By). I really appreciate it :) .. I was slightly busy.. Anyway, I should be back to normal Wiki use by the end of May-I hope.Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 18:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason was given in the edit summary. If you have a bug to report, please do so in an appropriate manner (politely, and assuming good faith). ed g2s • talk10:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The production order #=the production code on the list of Dresden episodes. This is confirmed by the SFC press Kit. If you want to quibble about wordage then I'll change the citation to point to the Press Kits but these are offline. Online sources are better for everyone. --John T. Folden21:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it literally states those numbers as the production code. They're Kits published for press use, but they are published. How readily available something is does not discount it as a source. Otherwise a huge number of specialized medical periodicals, magazines, out of print books, etc, could not be used as a citation. If you would prefer to label them as the Order # vs Code then I have no problems with that but there's no reason to remove them. --John T. Folden21:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said it states them as Production Code in the SFC Press Kit. If you want to go to the trouble to track them down then you can verify them as is the case with any other limited publication. I don't believe your opinion on this matter is correct. Would you prefer them put back with the SFC Press Kit as a source or change the title to production Order, etc? Otherwise, I think we'll need to take this through the WP:Mediation_Cabal or similar.--John T. Folden22:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's copyright infringement to reproduce the Press Kit and post it online, which is why i didn't do it or use it as the source to begin with. I acquired my copy off of eBay several months ago. --John T. Folden22:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want to verify the simple existence of the Press Kits. Well, there's two DVDs from them selling on ebay right now, a google search turns up several old auctions, people have been gleaning and posting info from them on the Jim-Butcher.com forum for months (do a search for "Press Kit" including quotes and they start popping up), etc... if you want one personally then you'd have to hunt it down like anyone else does at this late date (considering some of them are almost a year old) but this obviously isn't an item you can walk into Walmart and buy. That doesn't make it any less credible than the next limited publication, like a medical periodical, however it's not as good as online sources. Verifiability requires the info be published or made available by a reliable source, not a guarantee that the source will always be forever available to all and sundry. Which is exactly the reason why I stuck to those online sources as I was previously advised to by the WP:Mediation_Cabal. --John T. Folden23:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Andromeda_-_S02E06.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Andromeda_-_S02E06.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. User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)21:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...but I already have stopped edit warring. I'm resorting to mediation and discussion, whereas Dev continues to revert. Do you see how silly this gets?--Ed¿Cómo estás?23:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your edit summary at all; "italics are for long works, not short -- per MoS". What do you mean "long works"? Anyway, the future episodes are italicised to differentiate them from ones that have already been aired, and is a practice I picked up off other templates. What exactly is the problem? Number5717:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Otto471114:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I wouldn't intervene on Otto's behalf, but it is in extremely poor taste to give a templated warning to someone that you are involved in an edit war with. Obviously, you both are aware of the policy, as you are both experienced editors. What did you hope to accomplish by slapping that warning on his talk page? If there is a problem, try to work it out on the talk page first. If that fails, take it to RfC to get an opinion from someone who is not directly involved with the dispute. There is no need to conduct yourselves in this manner. Settle the dispute amicably and quit templating each other. --CyrusAndiron18:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, there is a better way than using the standard template. Those are generally reserved for people who are unaware of policy. A personal message that discused the problem and possible solutions probably would have worked better. Templating a regular editor only annoys them as shown by his response when he gave the warning right back. If you cannot settle the disupte take it to RfC rather than revert warring. Both of you are guilty of violating WP:3RR. --CyrusAndiron18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you like it or not, Category: Kyle XY episodes exists. Articles about the episodes, including seasonal episode summaries and lists of episodes, belong in it. So if you MUST (wrongly) categorize the articles in the Kyle XY category, then at least have the sense and courtesy to leave them in the episodes category. Not really that much to ask for. Otto471114:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you read the nomination, I am not trying to have the category deleted at all. I am trying to get it renamed so that it is in line with close to 200 other categories in the Category:Television characters by series category tree, to reflect what the category is actually being used for. Your false speculation on my motives are a failure to assume good faith. Otto471115:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it can be hard to search for links. The one you apparently can't find is currently about 5 lines above your comment on the talk page. Billywhack02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Water.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Water.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. BetacommandBot20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - The Man Who Fell to Earth (Two).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - The Man Who Fell to Earth (Two).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. BetacommandBot20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - The Greatest Love Story Never Told.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - The Greatest Love Story Never Told.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. BetacommandBot20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - The Enemy Within.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - The Enemy Within.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. BetacommandBot20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - The Church of Morgan.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - The Church of Morgan.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. BetacommandBot20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - The Boy Who Would be Terrian King.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - The Boy Who Would be Terrian King.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. BetacommandBot20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Survival of the Fittest.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Survival of the Fittest.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. BetacommandBot20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Redemption.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Redemption.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. BetacommandBot20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Promises, Promises.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Promises, Promises.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. BetacommandBot20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Natural Born Grendlers.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Natural Born Grendlers.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. BetacommandBot20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Moon Cross.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Moon Cross.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. BetacommandBot20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Life Lessons.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Life Lessons.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. BetacommandBot20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Grendlers in the Myst.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Grendlers in the Myst.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. BetacommandBot20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Flower Child.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Flower Child.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. BetacommandBot20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - First Contact - P2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - First Contact - P2.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. BetacommandBot20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - First Contact - P1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - First Contact - P1.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. BetacommandBot20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - First Contact - P1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - First Contact - P1.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. BetacommandBot20:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Brave New Pacifica.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Brave New Pacifica.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. BetacommandBot20:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Better Living Through Morganite - P2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Better Living Through Morganite - P2.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. BetacommandBot20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Better Living Through Morganite - P1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Better Living Through Morganite - P1.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. BetacommandBot20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - All About Eve.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - All About Eve.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. BetacommandBot20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - After the Thaw.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - After the Thaw.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. BetacommandBot20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - A Memory Play.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - A Memory Play.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. BetacommandBot20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Drop Dead Gorgeous -- Series 1 Episode 4.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Drop Dead Gorgeous -- Series 1 Episode 4.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. BetacommandBot20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Drop Dead Gorgeous -- Series 1 Episode 3.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Drop Dead Gorgeous -- Series 1 Episode 3.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. BetacommandBot20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bot isn't spamming as per custom when it nominates a image for deletion it notifies the uploader. I will not change that behavior, so your options are either not upload those images or don't leave them orphans. So get over it Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)20:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 215 - Haunted.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. BetacommandBot21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 213 - Last Call.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 213 - Last Call.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. BetacommandBot21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 212 - Forget Me Not.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 212 - Forget Me Not.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. BetacommandBot21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 211 - Ashes to Ashes.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 211 - Ashes to Ashes.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. BetacommandBot21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 210 - Be Still My Heart.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 210 - Be Still My Heart.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. BetacommandBot21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 209 - Be Still My Heart.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 209 - Be Still My Heart.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. BetacommandBot21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 208 - The Escape Artist.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 208 - The Escape Artist.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. BetacommandBot21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 207 - Rites of Passage.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 207 - Rites of Passage.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. BetacommandBot21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 206 - In Escrow.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 206 - In Escrow.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. BetacommandBot21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 205 - Hurry.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 205 - Hurry.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. BetacommandBot21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 204 - The Shallow End.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 204 - The Shallow End.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. BetacommandBot21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 203 - Ghost Story.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 203 - Ghost Story.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. BetacommandBot21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 202 - The Ledger.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 202 - The Ledger.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. BetacommandBot21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 201 - SendintheClown.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 201 - SendintheClown.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. BetacommandBot21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 113 - Rest in Peace.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 113 - Rest in Peace.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. BetacommandBot21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 111 - Nighthawks.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 111 - Nighthawks.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. BetacommandBot21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 110 - The Bicycle Thief.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 110 - The Bicycle Thief.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. BetacommandBot21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 109 - Business Unfinished.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 109 - Business Unfinished.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. BetacommandBot21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 108 - Sunday Mornings.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 108 - Sunday Mornings.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. BetacommandBot21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 107 - A Cook.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 107 - A Cook.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. BetacommandBot21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 106 - Reaper Madness.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 106 - Reaper Madness.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. BetacommandBot21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 105 - My Room.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 105 - My Room.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. BetacommandBot21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 104 - Reaping Havoc.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 104 - Reaping Havoc.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. BetacommandBot21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 103 - Reapercussions.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 103 - Reapercussions.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. BetacommandBot21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 102 - Curious George.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 102 - Curious George.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. BetacommandBot21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 101 - Dead Girl Walking.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 101 - Dead Girl Walking.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. BetacommandBot21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 100 - Pilot.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 100 - Pilot.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. BetacommandBot21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you reverted my tagging of a non-free image that doesn't have a fair-use rationale. You appear to have used your revert button to do this--did you believe my edit to be vandalism?
In any case, please see my notification of Khaosworks, the original uploader, involving this and two other non-free images. All he has to do is supply rationales for the use of these works, which do not belong to us and are not freely licensed, in the three Wikipedia articles in which they're used.
Matthew, Tony's right, there is no fair use rationale on that capture. I'm sure Khaosworks will be onto it shortly, but in the mean time using admin rollback on a tag which is correctly placed and addresses a problem with legal ramifications is a bit off, especially given Tony's long involvement with the project. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looked like rollback, but I'm not clear whether you're an admin, Matthew. Was it some kind of revert script? In any case an informative edit summary would have helped here.
On your reference to gmaxwell, I won't mince words. Did someone contact you and relay discussions taking place on the admin channel? If so, would you please identify that person? --Tony Sidaway15:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understood my request. You don't have to be an administrator to be aware of who informed you about discussions on a closed IRC channel. To repeat my request: would you please identify the person who leaked those confidential discussions? --Tony Sidaway15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate the fact that you summarily dismissed my edit to Template:Infobox character as "indiscriminate." I can understand opposing hair and eye colour options if the infobox is used strictly for film and TV characters, but I am looking for a generic character infobox which can be used in articles about characters in written fiction, and, since you cannot see a character in a book, information about hair and eye colour is in no way "indiscriminate." Look at Template:HP character. -Severa (!!!) 10:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And since when have such tidbits as "nickname" and "call sign" been significant aspects of a character? How many characters run radio stations? How is this information not "indiscriminate?" But subjective assessments of what constitutes "indiscriminate" information are just that: subjective. -Severa (!!!) 11:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really liked that song and now you say it won't ever be in the series. Do you have to disappoint people like that? byeee20:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... not so much. It only says that it might- which we don't know. Well, at least you said 'does', not 'will not', because in that case I'd have been really sad. byeee20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent post demanding that an admin have their rights removed because of an editing mistake has damaged your credibility, as has your followup conduct in the discussion. Please remain civil and assume good faith when dealing with problems. It is infinitely more useful to try and discuss things calmly than... the alternative that you chose. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew: this clearly isn't worth an edit war, given that the announcement is just a few hours away. However, it is important to realize that the "upfronts" are when the networks make their official presentations as to the upcoming season. CBS will hold theirs later today (May 16th) at Carnegie Hall in New York City. Until then, all we can report is what we're hearing from "sources" such as Variety magazine. (Look at the Futon Critic page you used as a reference. That's not an official press release from CBS. Check out this link for an example of a post-upfront release.) As I said, this isn't something to battle over - can we agree to hold off for the real announcement? --Ckatzchatspy08:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably more choked... I liked the post-apocalyptic angle, but found the writing and acting to be somewhat lacking. Nevertheless, it was a Wednesday night staple. (Don't worry, I'm not thinking "don't say it's cancelled because maybe it will be saved." Nothing of the sort - just saying that CBS' *official* statement at the upfronts has yet to occur.) Cheers! --Ckatzchatspy09:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad that Jericho was cancelled, I was thinking of starting to watch it (but a cliffhanger ending :O ).. Cheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib.03:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with noting that the cancellation is disputed, given the fact that it seems to be a particularly virulent dispute. Just because the editors are anons doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken seriously. — Rickyrab | Talk20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you autorevert my change to the Trivia template? See the discussion page over there for why my edit is correct and why the WP:TRIVIA guideline would need to be changed for the Trivia template to be worded with a claim that trivia sections should be removed.
It is you who are edit warring - your contribution in the last few minutes has been "you will do no such thing" and a 3RR template message, rather than actually countering my (correct) argument. Why don't you do the right thing and get a consensus established over at WP:TRIVIA instead of trying to do an end round around it by just editing the template to reflect the way you personally believe Wikipedia should run. Tempshill16:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The old Fictional Spacecraft/Fictional Sci Fi Ground vehicle debate again
Just thought you would like to know that the debate we had about the Laser Tank, Moon Buggy etc has erupted here into a category discussion. It's being proposed that the Laser Tank etc be recategorised as Fictional Spacecraft among other things. Douglasnicol17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your new design transcluded in the article I was reading, and it wasn't the standard spoilers template. Tphi15:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As some articles are linked to Template:Spoiler and others to Template:Spoilers, there are now two designs to the warning which is confusing. Please feel free to put your proposed design to the look of Template:Spoiler on its talk page, but leave the Template:Spoilers redirect as it is. Tphi15:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a few minutes, can you take a look at the discussion I'm having at User_talk:Romanspinner#Twilight_Zone_cast_edits and let me know your thoughts on the matter? You've worked with TV episode formatting a lot more than I have, and I'm sure you know the policies and guidelines better. Travisl16:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Matthew, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Tomb of Athena - Battlestar Galactica.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Matthew/Archive/Archive 1. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk04:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, please take the time to actually look at what I proposed. {{spoiler}} will be gaining the ability to do the exact same thing as {{spoiler-about}}, but merged into one template instead of using two (which should have happened regardless of any spoiler discussion, simply because they were made without people considering phaserfunctions). It's a technical merge that changes nothing of the appearance of either template, and both will appear the same as they did before. -- Ned Scott21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you changed the image used on Sanctuary (web series) from the original image I uploaded, to the lower quality intertitle. I was just curious to know what the reason was for changing it? If it's regarding copyright, you should be aware that screenshots are permitted (in fact, they encourage them). I've asked them to clarify the copyright licence. Assuming they respond affirmatively, would you have any objection if I changed it back to the higher quality image? (I also asked this question on the Sanctuary talk page, but you didn't respond so I'm asking you here). Lachlan Hunt15:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image you uploaded was from the end (and not from the beginning intertitle), standard practice on Wikipedia is to use the title screen from the introduction titles. For example see Stargate SG-1 or Stargate Atlantis. "If it's regarding copyright, you should be aware that screenshots are permitted", Wikipedia's policies and guidelines prohibit high-resolution/high-quality non-free imagery (see WP:NFCC), so we must use web resolution images. "I've asked them to clarify the copyright license", unfortunately we can't use high-quality "with permission" images, this is because Wikipedia can be forked (and so people who fork Wikipedia will not have permission). Hope this clears it up. have a good afternoon, Matthew15:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they're the articles I looked at to see what sizes were ok. The SG-1 image is 852×480, the Atlantis image is 640×360. The image I uploaded was somewhere between those, at 720×405, which was reduced from the original 1920×1080.
When I said clarify the copyright licence, I didn't mean specifically for wikipedia. I meant in general, and I'm hoping they provide a licence that is compatible with the GFDL.
Regarding it being from the end, I assume you mean because it contains the URI as well. Fair enough. If that's the case, then I guess the image I uploaded can be deleted if it's not going to be used. (You can respond on this page, I've added to my watchlist). Lachlan Hunt17:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the Stargate ones are a bit big at present (I'll resize them sometime - if I remember, hehe) - that was just an example of the opening portion usage. If they'll release an image under a GFDL compatible license... well that would be marvelous, I certainly wouldn't complain! Matthew17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My signature complies with the guidelines set out at WP:SIG. If you're one of those who dislikes fancy signatures, then you're perfectly entitled to your opinion - but there's no precedent for refactoring other people's signatures on community talk pages. (However, I will defer to your preference in signing this posting on your talkpage.) Walton17:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop reverting edits made by me to David Tennant have you read what I've said or are you stupid? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurabal (talk • contribs).
Just a humble suggestion. It's not worth an edit war over a picture. Anyway, the new one's probably going to be deleted anyway, b/c of fair use, and then you can just replace it with the old one. My two pence, for what it's worth... :) -Ebyabe20:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, please stop blanking the adverse effects section of the Juice Plus article. The section is under active discussion on the talk page. If you have any comments regarding the content, include them on the talk page but do not delete the content without an explanation; blanking is considered vandalism. Also, I suggest you read the “do not” section of WPs help guide on reverting [27]. Rhode Island Red14:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, I have outlined in detail that no concensus has been reached for removal of the section in question. In fact the concensus reached was that the material should stand.[28] Please do not delete this content again unless you can provide sufficient justification on the talk page. Blanking of this kind is considered vandalism. Rhode Island Red14:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, please stop deleting the content on the Juice Plus page. If you have comments to add to the discussion then do so, but simply deleting content without commenting is inappropriate. Rhode Island Red13:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you re-read WP:CON and consider whether the disucssion on the Juice Plus page has followed appropriate procedure for concensus building. IMO, it has not, so it cannot be claimed that a consensus exists for removal. Hope you understand my position. Rhode Island Red14:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, the previous consensus was to keep this information. Please review the history outlined in my last reply to Elonka on the talk page (included below). No new consensus has been established to delete it. The onus is on those who are pushing for deletion to state their case on the talk page rather than falsely claiming that a consensus exists for deletion. If you have comments to add to the discussion, then do so, but as I have stated repeatedly, do not merely delete the text without elaborating the reasons. Thank you in advance.
You have repeatedly claimed that a consensus exists to delete the content,[29][30][31][32] and as I have repeatedly pointed out, it is plainly obvious that no such consensus was ever reached. In actuality, you are the only editor who has suggested removing the entire section, you have not provided sufficient justification to defend your assertion, you have repeatedly ignored my comments on the talk page without replying,[33][34][35] you have ignored requests from me and one other editor to not delete the content and to solicit additional input from other editors, [36][37] you have failed to acknowledge the prior discussions on this topic in which it was agreed that the content should stay,[38] and you have ignored the fact that editors other than myself have contributed to the content in this section since it was restored.[39]
You first did a re-write of the article on Feb 17,[40] at which time I found it curious that you had arbitrarily omitted the section on adverse effects. I pointed out the omission immediately on the same day, [41] assuming it was a mere oversight, and you acknowledged it without voicing any objection to its re-inclusion.[42] The adverse effects section was restored on Feb 24 [43] and you failed to comment on it for the next several months until May 12.[44] At that time, you suggested deleting the entire section and then you unilaterally deleted it on May 17,[45] claiming that a consensus supported your decision, when in fact no editor other than you had said that the section should be deleted. It is now becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith underlying your removal of this content. Please stop deleting it and stop falsely claiming that your deletion is supported by a consensus. If you persist, this issue will be brought to the attention of WP administration for remedial action. Rhode Island Red01:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I apologise for that. But you must try to understand the trouble that ChrisCNichols has been causing, its has come near to vandalism many times. He may be acting in good faith, but he caused lots of problems writing in a informal tone, trying to add photos etc. They are also "Overviews", so I don't see wry synopsis needs to be there. Many others have "Overview", like the Dad's Army one. --UpDown15:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a different discussion. Regardless, it is not useful of you to supporting this user, who does things causes many problems on these pages. But it too late now, nice talking to you. --UpDown15:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Stargate Atlantis - Rail Gun Fire -1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Stargate Atlantis - Rail Gun Fire -1.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot07:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry - I didn't see that because it wasn't when I requested backup. Yeah, sorry. That does basically reflect my immediate reaction to seeing a solution to a large problem on Wikipedia that I spent quite a lot of time on get nominated for deletion under circumstances that are querrelous at best. It was, however, an inappropriate word to use. Phil Sandifer16:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it seems that you were receiving live logs of the administrators' IRC channel, we would all appreciate if you were to tell us who is supplying you with this information. This user is a concern to some of the more serious private issues that are discussed in the channel, such as issues concerning dealing with the various biographies of living persons that have arisen lately. If you could, please e-mail either Mackensen or Dmcdevit with the name of the administrator giving you the logs, as it is a serious security issue for Wikipedia itself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 16:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it seems that you were receiving live logs of the administrators' IRC channel, we would all appreciate if you were to tell us who is supplying you with this information. This user is a concern to some of the more serious private issues that are discussed in the channel, such as issues concerning dealing with the various biographies of living persons that have arisen lately. If you could, please e-mail either Mackensen or Dmcdevit with the name of the administrator giving you the logs, as it is a serious security issue for Wikipedia itself. Sean William17:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may provide logs or information from or about logs to the Arbitration committee per email, if they contain information relevant to an arbitration committee case, and only if you feel like it. You are not obligated to do so, or to do anything else.--Kim Bruning17:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, just to pop in here, I have star trek articles on my watchlist so I saw your Oberth removal there as OR. The class being named after Hermann Oberth can be sourced to The Star Trek Encyclopedia, written by Mike Okuda and his wife, who design and flesh out the props, art and models used on the show, and can be considered a reliable source for this information. I have the book here with me if you want to thouroughly tag it as a ref, I can give you the isbn number and what not if you need it. Given our disagreements before I figured I'd bring it to you here instead of some impersonal revert :) -Mask?00:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So because you are extremely biased (as shown by the Kept Man AfD), you have reverted a ton of episodes that fail WP:EPISODE outright? You shouldn't be the one to do this; if you found a point problem with it, you should have brought it up somewhere else before reverting. You may like episode articles, but they fail a fundamental principal (this site isn't a plot summary). If anyone is making a point, it would be you. TTN11:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am biased, but I am in the right - I am enforcing a guideline. No information backed by secondary sources means no article. That is it. You can push the "they can be improved point", but that can happen after. You have reverted on the principal that "others disagree with me." Of course they do; that's a given. No matter what, someone is always going to end up grumpy in the end. That is no reason to undo the work because you like them. And have you even looked at what you have reverted? I have received no opposition for those, and, you know, discussion isn't required. I have left messages on some episode list talk pages (two of the ones you reverted), but most would never actually receive them. That is as good of a discussion as you're going to get. TTN11:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do they pass WP:EPISODE then? You failed to answer that in the AfD, and you'll fail here. And you know, these would fall under WP:BRD if anyone really did disagree with them, so you really don't have an actual point in your reversions. You're obviously pushing for a cause (Episode articles for everyone! Get them while they're hot, cheap, and pointless!), so it wouldn't really count with you. What reason do I have not to revert you on that knowledge? TTN11:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The actual episode is a primary source. They have no secondary sources, so your point really makes no sense. According to that, they shouldn't even exist in the first place. I'm going by "Dealing with problem articles", where both answers are no. TTN11:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, you said that they have enough from secondary sources, but the only source on each of those episodes is the primary source. Obviously, you're getting confused or you're seeing secondary sources that I'm not seeing. Would you please point some out? TTN12:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the "sources may exist" argument! It's been a real long time since I've seen that. You missed the part of your quote where it says "verifiable" information, not conjectural information. Each series needs to prove its own worth on a case by case basis. You cannot seriously claim that all of them have information en masse. TTN12:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, That 70's showmay have information, but someone needs to provide it. One Piece, on the other hand, is a cartoon that will run well past one thousand episodes at the rate it's going. It will likely never have any sort of information for each episode. You cannot just claim that both have sources out there, and be all set. TTN12:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though please be kind enough to address the above point instead of wikiLawyering with the "consensus must be found first" stuff. WP:BRD is a fine approach. No one has disagreed with me on that series yet (you don't count). TTN12:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But your reason for the reverts is "no consensus was established." That doesn't fall under BRD; that falls under wikilawyering. You're reverting only on the that basis. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with the actual removals. Anyways, if we're going to do this, please address the above point. TTN12:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy doesn't require discussing every change. To use that as the basis of your reverting is just plain old wikilawyering. The merging/redirection of articles is tedious; stopping every ten seconds, leaving a message, and waiting for each one would be annoying, so we have BRD. You cannot apply BRD with "no consensus" because that is the point of it. TTN12:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So do you think a third opinon from WP:3O would be helpful, or is this "analysis" going to take care of everything? TTN13:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now would be a good time to stop. Please discuss and reach consensus before splitting out further episodes, and do not do so unless there are credible third-party sources both for the content and for its significance independent of the series itself. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please hurry this up if possible. I would like to get back on track pretty soon, and I certainly can't do that with you looming around. TTN16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How large is this argument of yours? You do realize that it's probably going to be your own opinion on how either we should include everything on the site (not happening), or how we should just leave every episode article because they may have secondary sources just lying around, right? This isn't going to change the guideline one bit, so I really don't see what you expect to get out of it (except enjoyment from me being annoyed from waiting). TTN17:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people on the weaker side always do that? Instead of passing me off as nothing, can you at least explain your basic argument? I'm just expecting the usual stuff like WP:NOT#PAPER abuse. TTN17:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EPISODE disagrees with you. Verifiable secondary sources (not "Google it", actual sources) are required. This site needs more than plotsummaries, and these are plot summaries. "Google it" doesn't work, so I fail to see how I have no argument. TTN17:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Un, why did you undo that? I will be redirecting those shortly per the unanswered discussion on the talk page (five days). TTN13:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that some categories have been deleted related to TV episodes, which have involved you and one or more other users. It appears that the categories have been emptied as the articles have been replaced with redirects. In some cases the articles have been reverted after the category has been deleted. I am aware of 2 of these Category:Tiny Toon Adventures episodes and Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! GX episodes and have restored them as they are no longer empty. If you are aware of any additional categories which are in a similar situation related to this "dispute", please let me know so that I may restore them also. I want to be VERY clear that I am not taking sides in this issue, and I am not condoning any revert waring between editors. I have not looked into this enough to know who is right and who is wrong (nor do I care to, as it appears that enough other people are involved). I do however, want to ensure that any categories that have been deleted before they were empty for the 4 day holding period are restored if there are currently articles which should be in them. Regardless of how this matter is eventually settled, the categories should not be deleted until consensus is reached. No need to respond on my talk page, I'll check back here as I've added this page to my watchlist. --After Midnight000101:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy also notes that consensus can change. That several editors are now working on these new templates suggests, in fact, that we've entered the process of change. Phil Sandifer19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by your continued citation of Wikipedia:Consensus in defense of your revert warring. To quote from the policy, "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus... Normally consensus on conflicts are reached via discussion on talk pages." You have yet to post to the talk page of any of these templates. Similarly, the flowchart on that page notably does not contain any arrows leading back to "previous consensus." With two divided TfDs, it's clear that there is some momentum for change. Revert warring is antithetical to the process by which consensus is developed. Please stop. Phil Sandifer18:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent such situations in the future, please create a secondary account (e.g. User:MatthewBot) to run your bot on, and visit Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval to get it certified. Because a bot has the potential to do a lot of damage if there is something wrong in the code, the procedure is to let a few other coders take a look at it first. HTH! >Radiant<11:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-examined my position based on your assurances that the TfD is really just about the box, I've modifyed my !vote. If you wouldnt mind, could you take a look at the idea I had and put in my latest response to you on that page? It may end up a good one, imho. -Mask?02:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't need to be a discussion with people to form a consensus. I have left a message. Nobody responded, so that is good enough. Again, you do not count as you just disagree with WP:EPISODE. The proper thing for you to do is take it up there or comment at the current WP:VPP discussion, not pretend that "no consensus" is a proper way to revert. TTN14:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
! MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Shane (talk/contrib) 18:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
nathanrdotcom (Got something to say? Say it.) 02:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
). Thanks. --Slowking Man 20:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dl2000 17:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
18:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Battlestar_Galactica_-_Main_Guns.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=68451309){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:BattlestarGalactica_-_Smaller_Turrets.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=68450929){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Medium_--_1x16.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=68447937){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[13]](http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Image:Bsg-2-cvn.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
_3){kind=link}
![Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion](/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_April_14#Image:Jericho_1x14_"Heart_of_Winter".jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_I.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-2007-05-14T02:38:00.000Z-Image:Deep_Stand-Off_Attack_Ship_(DSA)_I.jpg){kind=link}
-2007-05-19T04:10:00.000Z-Image:Tomb_of_Athena_-_Battlestar_Galactica.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}