User talk:sgeureka/Archive01

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Sgeureka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Tone 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you found 3 spelling mistakes in this article. Two of them were real mistakes (thanks for fixing), but the other one (ahve->have) was supposed to say "ahve" (i.e. misspelled) and has been changed back to the wrong spelling. I'm just letting you know in case you want to fix this word again. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 09:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sgeureka. I've made a note of it. Cheers, CmdrObot 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your best option with this article would be to merge it into Wild. I don't think those kind of lists are generally favoured, but a list in the disambiguation page certainly would be. J Milburn 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I just took them off there because the list was getting rather long (and will be getting longer in the future), and the guidelines for disambiguation pages (Mos:DAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created) say longer lists of names should (generally) not be included on dab pages when there is no risk of confusion. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to DFA (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not vandalism, just cleaning up a dab page and making obvious why Dark Angel (band) is listed on DFA. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I appreciate your message on Brian's homepage but I'm not him. He is an up and coming Gaelic Footballer here in Ireland, it's our biggest national sport-bigger than soccer or rugby. How can I put the page back up and ensure it is not deleted in error again? People are so negative on this encyclopedia, I've had loads of interest in the page from Cork GAA fans and Gaelic football fans in general here in Ireland. Please see Peter Canavan and Seán Óg Ó hAilpín's page for further examples of Gaelic Footballers/Hurlers. Thanks, C Corkirish 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

answered at User_talk:Corkirish – sgeureka ^t•c 19:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A simple cut and paste mistake, Season 9 while getting both box set types they were released at the same time and yes Season 10 hasn't came out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atirage (talk • contribs) 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Alessio Bissoli

Hello, I've found some of your messages in my talk page. So I reply to you. I've check for example the page on the theme "communication" on wiki and the structure and the redaction style of that page seems the same of the "coordination" page. Probably there are few little differences and so you can perfect the style of this page, adding or changing something also to the content, if you have material. Wiky is a free encyclopedia and so I really don't understand why you should delete some useful references or notes present on a page. I've no engaged any war with you!!! I put only some useful materials for everyone, and as other person I spend time for doing this, expecially if delete always the content. Ciao

answered at User_talk:Alessiobissoli#Coordination- – sgeureka ^t•c 14:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

this is my reply to your message!!!

"Wikipedia encourages you to write such an article about Coordination...."

and something on this theme I've added but your current approach don't let this. ;)

"..You are not expected to know everything immediately; I've been here for months and still discover new guidelines and policies...".

Hei!!!me too....;)

"And yes, wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but there are thousands of contributors, and we have to collaborate whenever there is disagreement on what a page should include or how it should look. And yesterday, there was obvious disagreement about Coordination, which you reverted again and again without ever leaving comments why you changed it back.."

True....as you....the content was right and sounded good....and so why you haven't change directly the structure, improving it, leaving or adding something? ;)

As I've said before: The content that was on Coordination (when I came to cleanup it up as a marked dab=disambiguation page) was already at wikt:coordination in more detail, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so any dictionary-like content could be deleted without losing any info, so I deleted it. I changed the structure directly and improved it by using the guidelines of MoS:DAB, which wasn't the case before. I left what seemed appropriate for a dab page, and others continued to add what they thought should also be included on this dabe page (per MoS:DAB).

"... My cleanup version and whenever someone reverted to a/the cleaned-up version was an obvious attempt to make Coordination follow that guideline."

So....SPEND TIME to design the right structure!!!, following the guidelines, and so people can add the contents!!!;)

I don't need time to design the right structure, because others have already done this with consensus before I even set foot on wikipedia (see the evolution of MoS:DAB in the history, for example). I followed the guidelines, you didn't (this is an oberservation, not an accuse). People (also you) are free to add contents. But your edits removed content instead of adding, because (as I've said in the edit summaries), the word "coordination" didn't even get mentioned in your linked-to pages, and a dab page linking to pages where no info can be found is a useless dab page.

"Whenever you make an edit to a page, it is considered etiquette to leave an edit summary. You have never done so, so it was hard to determine what your reasons for editing were (for better or for worse). Repeatedly ignoring edit summaries despite having received advice is generally considered vandalism and may be reverted instantly. As you still haven't left any edit summaries, I ask you again to please include them."

Could be a good advice...;)

"You seem to be one of the authors who have published a book about "Coordination". Per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, you should be very careful to edit any topics too close to you, or you may be accused of mistaking wikipedia for a soapbox (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). Because you have included the reference to your book by yourself, that reference should be (and was) deleted. If other people consider it useful, they will include it anyway sooner or later. If not, then not."

Clearly, as many persons that write something on a subject. This is not a guilt!!!This is not a promotion!!!You can't pretend that the content of something sounds good if you not deepen the knowledge on a thing!!;)

So why are/were you so eager to constantly revert to a version that included a mention of your book? As you didn't leave any edit summaries, I had good reason to think you reverted for self-promotion. But if, as you say, that was not your intent, you will also not feel sad if a mention of your book gets removed, right?

"If you want to write a special subtopic of "Coordination", enter the topics name (not "Coordination", but for instance "Coordination (petri net)", i.e. "Coordination (petri net)"), and a new page will pop up where you can write in detail how coordination works there."

All rights....but you cannot ask that people add everything!!!

The contributions are spontaneous!!and without any forcing and obligation;)

This is the reason why wikipedia is a free encyclopedia!!!

No-one is asking people to add anything to wikipedia if they don't want to. But wikipedia would be a mess if there were no guidelines and policies. Guidelines and policies make wikipedia a better places, not worse; or they wouldn't exist.

"That's all you should know for now. I'll leave another welcome info batch with important links below, so that you can read up what wikipedia is for. Do not revert to your version of Coordination again."

Spend you some time adding or correcting something, I'm not payed for doing this everytime!!!Enjoy editing Wikipedia!!!!!;)

I'm constantly adding and correcting things on wikipedia by my own free will; you are free to check my contributions, which mainly concern cleaning up dab and surname pages. Coordination is just one of many dab pages that was marked for cleanup, and I'm not picking on you because I dislike you or other nonsense, but instead to make wikipedia better wherever I can by forming consensus.

Thank you for not reverting immediately. If you still have questions, just ask me. Greetings, – sgeureka ^t•c 17:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I cleaned up the dab page Poop some while ago and kept it on my watch list and have not taken it off since. The talk page gets vandalised several times a week, but it's not really a problem (yet). I've had a look at the edits of the last 4 months (80+, not counting reverts), and this is the diff result. Now, approximately 1.5 years ago, you semi-protected the talk page [1], maybe just by accident telling from the following edits. As I can't really tell whether talk pages are also allowed/supposed to be semi-protected in certain cases, and I don't want to go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection before I know, I just want you as an admin to have a look at the talk page and tell me what should be done/if it's really worth it/recommendable to have it semi-protected (in this case). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy#Semi-protection talk pages should only be temporarily semi-protected.

If I were god-king of Wikipedia then I would probably permanently semi-protect talk:poop, but since it is not written in the policy I can't do so unilaterally. I still remember the complaints from when I keep some much-vandalized pages permanently semi-protected before permanent semi-protection was allowed :).

So if you want the talk page protected then try posting a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thue | talk 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Sgeureka. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Lostpedialogo.png) was found at the following location: User:Sgeureka/Interests. This image or media will be removed per criterion 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. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 19:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no need at all for you to be removing the link to Grünhut from Johann Jakob Schudt. Red links should only be taken out in the case that WP doesn't need an article on the topic. Charles Matthews 09:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Grünhut is/was a redirect to the dab page Grün, which is/was being cleaned up per WP:SU. Since Grünhut (along with hundreds and hundreds of other redirects by this now banned user) got put up for speedy deletion and will be deleted, the redlink might as well be turned into no link at all. Note: The user who created this redirect has been creating it/them for just the surnames of publishers. If there will ever be an article about the publisher, it will be going by the full name. Also, before I removed the links and put Grünhut up for speedy, I checked wikisearch and saw several mentions of this publisher with no links. Therefore, this publisher might as well go with no links at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This Barnstar was given to me last year for my attempts at cleaning up The Beatles' influence on popular culture, and I now gladly pass it onto you. Great work.

Oh wow, thank you. :-) Something I never expected. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoanonymous 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey how do you know about Lost and its special fetures and stuff? i wana no lol

Cheerz

E

As I said in the edit summary: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/home_entertainment/video/e3i7d30778023890879c3306e78e56b24e9 (and I also left a link to there on the main page - see the footnote on Special Features). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good morning, sir. You deleted a large amount of singles from the Pink Floyd Discography - "Apples and Oranges", "It Would Be So Nice", "Let There Be More Light", "Point Me at the Sky", "The Nile Song", "One of These Days", "Have a Cigar" and "Comfortably Numb". These singles indeed exist. I have "Apples and Oranges" and "Have a Cigar" on my desk right now, and am playing the well known b-side to "Point Me At The Sky", "Careful With That Axe, Eugene". These exist. I have all of these singles. On 45. Apples, Nice, Light and Point were all issued (but did not chart) in the UK. "Nile Song", i believe, was a european single, but it does merit inclusion, as this is not a selective discography of singles. We are not only including "charting singles". Even if a song does not chart, it still merits mention. All were singles, according to Pink Floyd Archives, which include singles covers! and so do the songs' wikipedia pages! please, if you delete a single from a discography, check if it exists first before you delete. Otherwise, you'll anger a few fans. Thank you. 16:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about my removing the links to List of Pink Floyd ROIOs and Have You Got It Yet? - they were already deleted in AfD's ([2], [3]) when I got there, and I just removed the redlinks. If you want them to be undeleted, contact an admin. Because all I did was some drive-by cleanup work and I don't know what you're talking about. ;-) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Foxtrot chalkboard ft031003.gif. 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. BetacommandBot 10:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for revising the Reichel page. I wasn't really sure how to organize it; I just knew it was silly that it redirected to Reich, despite no mention of "Reichel" in the Reich article and the existence of several Reichel pages. Propaniac 21:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The original page creator made it really hard and confusing with all his surname pages (Reichel was just one of hundreds of, possibly more than a thousand surname pages). Your recreation of the article meant less work for me, as cleaning up is always less work than (re-)creating. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 21:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Stargate Continuum Discussion page you lacked to mention Carter in your debate. She's one of SG-1's longest charactors and at least deserves to be mentioned. Her name should also be one of the first. But thats just my point of view. Just try ro mention the whole team more in the future. Thanks for your time.-Random contributor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.177.165 (talk • contribs)

That discussion was more than 3 months old, and the main point was whether RDA should be put in the first place when it wasn't even clear if he would appear in more than a short scene. My mentioning or not mentioning Carter was/is completely irrelevant, especially since it was on a wiki talk page. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you make an ancient type of name for Jimbo Wales? I was wondering if you can do one for me if you don't mind. The page is this. Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leor Natanov (talk • contribs) 2007-07-01 11:16:42

Hi; i just want to say thanks, for the high quality work you've been contributing to Wikipedia. —Piet Delport 03:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sgeureka; Thank you for your good advise about Deposition (relics). Sorry, I'm still learning. Best of luck to you. MishaPan 14:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed the part of the Atlantis episode list, I'm new at this and I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia. So overall I am very sorry!!! I didn't even know it was sourced to begin with. On Joseph Mallozzi's blog, it seemed that he implied "Three's Company" as a theme, not an episode title. I wasn't sure :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.117.12.20 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-26 19:35:20

Hi, thanks for the comment. I'm wondering if we could possibly work to create a Carnivale Portal. I've got a nice image in my mind of the tree of knowledge and a nice Orange and brown style, and just full of everything a Carnie would ever want to know about the show. I just signed up today to Wiki, so I'm not sure how to go about any of this. You seem like you got your head in the right place. I got the idea of the portal when I saw the Dark Tower portal and was pretty impressed. Check it out here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:The_Dark_Tower

Also, for the DVD section. If we could add a Rating and Running Time column, that would be great. And maybe another table or cell inside the Information and have the Bonus Features kinda branch off into the parts they are with some style, that would be great.

I'm a quick learner, so let me know what I can do to help and I'm there.

"Thou Shalt be Strong!" -- AngelGraves13 04:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Did some more work on the DVD releases. Someone else made it look nicer though. Probably you, I'm guessing :) If we could now get it centered on the page and get the background to where the covers are white, so it looks a bit cleaner because the edges of the pictures have white borders, all will be well.

Also, speaking of the DVD releases colors...the Season 1 case is burgundy and beige, and Season 2 is green and beige. I think it would make sense and give it a nice look to do that to the releases section. I still don't know how to do it really, so if you could that would be awesome. Thanks again! -- AngelGraves13 09:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha...those tables were crazy. I didn't really know what the hell I was doing, but I seemed to get it working...kinda.

Also..I was thinking we could make a section dealing with the visions in Carnivale for both Justin and Ben. I've taken some screenshots off the DVDs, but I don't think we could use them right?

And for "Creating the Scene" there is a webpage on HBO's site where you can view them. If we could make a hyperlink linking to it so other can see them, it would be a source, as well a free view into the making of the scenes. http://www.hbo.com/carnivale/behind/creating_the_scene/index.html

And here are some interviews with Knauf on HBO's site http://www.hbo.com/carnivale/behind/daniel_knauf.shtml and http://www.hbo.com/carnivale/behind/daniel_knauf2.shtml

I'm sure there's tons of stuff we can use from there. --AngelGraves13 10:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I'm finally done with the DVD section. I matched the colors to the DVD sets somewhat and tried to keep it with the colors of the article, so let me know what you think. I also added the taglines to the seasons, as well as the boxset descriptions. -- Harout Darmanchyan 02:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was trying to keep the colors close to the DVDs, but yeah...the yellow was a bit hard. Also, thanks for putting the quotes under the pic, that looks a lot better. I readded the horizontal line for seperation between the set and the content quality such as audio, video and subtitles. I hope we can agree to leave it like this as I am pleased. -- Harout Darmanchyan 09:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you wanna email me or message me the details of the British set, go ahead and I'll add them. The DVD releases so far is only for US. Maybe we can clear that up somewhere. It is true however that the US release is the definitive and best quality as it is progressive and european and japanese ones are interlaced and thus on less discs because of the inferior quality. I recommend you pick up the American releases if you can from Amazon or something. I'd link you to the differences in quality from the sets, but I don't remeber where it was. You just can't go wrong with the US release. It puts Superbit to shame! -- Harout Darmanchyan 09:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I was more referring to a frame by frame comparison. On Amazon, some said the UK season 2 set didn't look as clear as the first. Same happened with Deadwood's second season. Anyways, I have some DVD stills, but I have no idea how to upload them on this site. They're of Justin's Vision of the tree and the Usher. If you could help me out on that, I'd be very greatful. But, now it is 3:36 AM here in Los Angeles, and I need some shut eye. Goodnight. -- Harout Darmanchyan 10:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the DVD was delayed because of the commentaries and special features. The lawsuit was a rumor and had no effect since it was dismissed. The guy had no grounds. -- Harout Darmanchyan 17:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have CarnyCon 2006 on DVD. Maybe we could get a transcript from it or something or quote from it. There's some very interesting things mentioned there such as Justin's preacher coat. They had to make them in house after the company that makes them especially for preachers wouldn't sell it to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelGraves13 (talk • contribs)

I've been working on the Visions section a bit. I was wondering if you could make the gallery look a little better perhaps, I'm not too good with that kinda stuff yet. Give it a color or two if you can. Thanks again. -- Harout Darmanchyan 22:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking we should just rename the Visions, Dreams and Symbolism to Mythology and write down everything that's out of the ordinary in the show from dreams and visions to anything else we can think of. It needs a lot of work, but as you can see I've reduced the number of images. I'll only try and put cool images in there once the article gets a little longer. -- Harout Darmanchyan 18:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Justin as the Tattooed Man in first episode's vision -> Image:Justin_as_the_Tattooed_Man.jpg Harout Darmanchyan 08:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the kind of stuff you miss if you don't watch every single frame that flashes in the dreams. Some weird stuff comes up in there. The first epiosde's dreams have shots from nearly every episode in the first season including Dora Mae's funeral and what not. Justin even sees the burned children and their ghosts in his first dream. -- Harout Darmanchyan 08:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding some more info on the Sun & Moon as well as the Carnivale logo illustrating it. I also added some info on Avatars in Hindu mythology. Check my user talk section and see if you have a need for some of the orphaned images otherwise they'll be deleted on the 14th. Harout Darmanchyan 01:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask Knauf myself if I could. I'm sure he would confirm it. The connections are very clear. If I would know where to ask, I would. What do you recommend? Also, Avatar is based on Hindu mythology, I added that bit into the Avataric rules. -- Harout Darmanchyan 07:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Howard Klein, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0458782/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 11:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Locality (statistics), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Locality. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 20:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey there.

I'm afraid there is little I can to do prevent CSBot from going off on legitimate page splits; there is no was a bot can be smart enough to guess at the reason why a page has been copied.  :-( However, you needn't hesitate to simply remove the template in such cases. Because "bad" copies remain in the edit history and that even that is a legal no-no, waiting is probably not a viable option, unless it was known that the copy is legitimate... which brings us back to the first problem!

An alternative, if you want to avoid the warning entirely, is to make certain that the original page is modified first— this way, when the bot goes to check, it'll see that the new page doesn't look like what the old page currently looks like, and no warning would be issued. — Coren ^(talk) 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a look later today, but I'm not very good with critiquing specific details like grammar.--CyberGhostface 16:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it. Overall, I have no real complaints. Its very thorough and detailed without being too in-universe. I don't know if its FA status (being as the editors there are very picky) but if it is nominated you have my vote.--CyberGhostface 16:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You could use TVShowsonDVD.com to source in Region 1, maybe Region 2...not sure though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your swift assistance with BCMS. 79.73.45.86 23:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sgeureka: I wonder if you would mind reviewing/copyediting my article on Bruno Maddox that is currently at FAC? It is currently in the comment-comment-comment stages but seems to be going generally well. Any advice you might have would be much appreciated. Best, BillDeanCarter 06:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sgeureka, thanks for your many comments. I think I tackled most of them. The article has seen a lot of upheaval in the last few days.-BillDeanCarter 08:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, but the information just got reverted without explanation at Jeremy Paxman. Jw6aa 20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

When you attempt to clean-up disambiguation pages, like you did with Foundation, please follow the guidelines of MOS:DAB (especially "one link per entry") and MOS:T. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 09:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, fancy - did you use a tool for this? Could I get it? — Jack · talk · 23:17, Wednesday, 5 September 2007

No tool. I just applied MOS:T and then swapped the albums and the songs because of importance. And I'm pretty good with dab cleanups, that's all, and Foundation has been on my watchlist for some time. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll remember that in future. If you're interested in DABs, you might like to vote in WP:TFD#Template:Dab-criteria, WP:TFD#Template:Dabneeded and WP:TFD#Template:Dab current — Jack · talk · 23:27, Wednesday, 5 September 2007

Thanks for your note on my talk page, I've added my support for the FAC. I read over the prose cast section but couldn't find anything to correct. Congratulations on the carnivale article - it's a fine piece of work.--Opark 77 18:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind award on my talk page. I'm sure that my input was negligible compared to yours so if anyone deserves a barnstar its you! As such here is the barnstar from WP:TV for all your work getting Carnivale up to FA status.--Opark 77 09:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Television Barnstar
		I would like to award you this television barnstar for your hard work in getting Carnivàle to featured article status on behalf of wikiproject television.--Opark 77 09:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, was gonna give you one of these, but you've already got it. When Characters of Carnivale becomes featured, let along Mythology of, you oughta get another. Mdiamante 23:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a Flickr reviewer at Commons - just to give you a heads-up, I listed 3 images for deletion because they were not under free license as you had stated. The images were Image:Daniel Knauf at Carnycon.jpg, Image:Amanda Aday at CarnyCon.jpg, and Image:Michael J. Anderson at CarnyCon.jpg‎. Please drop me a note here on my en Wikipedia talk page if you have any questions about the Creative Commons licenses, I think you might misunderstand what Wikimedia considers 'free'. See this page for more information on what Wikimedia considers to be free content. In the meantime, I'm in e-mail contact with the photographer. He's released one photo under GFDL and I hope to convince him to release more. Cheers - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. This is a group thanks to all of you for your many comments and help in making the Bruno Maddox article reach FA. All the copyedits really helped polish up the article. I hope to work with you all once again. Best of luck on your own projects, BillDeanCarter 00:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if you reverted it. I think to complain and argue over such a petty issue is retarded, which is why I refuse to respond to you or anyone else on the topic. Either you or them are going to have a loooooooooooooot of work to do because I put it on like every popular show so enjoy going back and working on all that. Loansince 08:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Sgeureka, he blanked your comments about consensus on his user page (and others' comments as well). I think his comment immediately above will be great evidence when people start requesting blocks against him (any minute now). JTRH 12:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in Stargate — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help with a copy edit of List of Carnivàle episodes. Sorry about the edit conflict. I prepared all the citations outside of the page and cut and paste them over to avoid that sort of thing! You can always try {{inuse}} if you're undertaking a major edit.

We should definitely also link to the episode pages but that is a separate source to the episode itself. {{citeweb}} is best for the HBO site summaries and would give a second (if not exactly independent) source for each plot summary. I had planned to try this too but didn't have time yesterday. Check out List of The Wire episodes for an example of what I mean (I've just finished adding both types of references there).--Opark 77 07:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've undertaken a copy edit and added my support at the FLC. I'm rewatching at the moment, up to episode 9 this evening.--Opark 77 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You have nominated a recent WP:FLC. There have been two recent proposals to begin a List of the Day feature on the main page, which have both received majorities but have not been approved as overwhelming support sufficient for the main page. WP:LOTDP is a new proposal to try to get the ball rolling based on the original proposal. Voice your thoughts on its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree with the points you raise; the problem with AfD is its very unreliable and promotes what amounts to vote-stacking. Fans are largely indifferent to policy because they are ... fans and they will usually not be moved by larger standards that have been asserted over the years w/out an effort. I am no fan of revert wars, but when enough people are vigilant on the matter and willing to undo the reckless restore edits of fans who feel that redirecting this garbage is ruining wikipedia for everybody, it can at least force a discussion on the issue. For a truly depressing example of how people ignore our guidelines completely go look at the list of house characters talk page. You know, what we really need is to get organised so we can help survey and support each others efforts. Eusebeus 22:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Body modifications? I'm not 100% sure. What is the context? (show me the sentence where the phrase will fit)--Opark 77 21:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I found the section you mean. Currently "Freak applications and costumes". "Make-up and costumes" is probably the best fit as make-up can include all manner of appearance changes in film and television. For example make-up artists are responsible for the rubber masks aliens wear on Star Trek. Hope that helps.--Opark 77 21:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Both posted at approximately the same time there! Costumes sounds more appropriate to me - its certainly the term that is more commonly used.--Opark 77 21:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck with the nomination. By the way your "dead man [...] looking for a job" made me laugh out loud.--Opark 77 21:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've requested Arbitration regarding TTN's numerous edits to TV and other fiction articles, and included you as an "involved party" in the request. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#TTN.2C_part_Deux, and you should add a statement to the section somewhere under mine. Thanks. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am commenting here so as not to discourage someone else from giving a real reply. It seems to me that in order to be considered new, your drawings have to be so different from the original as to be inapplicable to the article, being mere fan art trivia. I’m not sure if your first image is new, but it does seem to have achieved inapplicability. I can’t make out the original of the second; so I couldn’t compare that. --teb728 (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I’m not expressing any opinion on the originality of your drawings. That is why I comment here—so as not to discourage someone else from giving an opinion on that. My whole point is that what you are attempting is futile: For if your drawings are so original that they are not derivative, then they are also inappropriate for use in an article. --teb728 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you reverted to the original version of the first image. You should also revert to the 7 August tag and rationale, mentioning in the rationale the article(s) it is used in. And since that is a non-free tag, the image needs to be used in at least one article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I really wasn't fishing for one, but thanks. I was surprised, upon looking at your talk page, that you have been working on WP less than a year. Your frequent advice in the disambig arena, almost always right on the money, gave me the impression of a sage who has been around forever. Well, we'll go with the sage part. Keep up the good work! Chris the speller (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Over on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence, you asked if those of us who want to keep these articles are trying to keep the articles "as they are," or to determine what can be done to bring the articles in line with guidelines and policies? Before my reply was rudely deleted by Ned Scott I tried to point out that in many, if not most cases, I prefer to bring the articles either in line, or closer to in line with guidelines and policies, even if I don't get around to doing so as quickly as TTN, Ned Scott, The Prince of Darkness, and most recently Collectonian are able to destroy them. I had a whole plan for improving Scrub Day (Even Stevens) that will never see a computer screen thanks to TTN. What I didn't mention, was that I was also seeking to improve Picture Day (Lizzie McGuire), since it was so filled with excessive commas, minimal spaces between those commas, and and long run-on sentences. This opportunity, and others like it were taken away by the mass-deletion movement. ----DanTD (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I read your comment, but as it says in bold at the top, do not edit in anybody else's section. Ned Scott moved your comment to the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence). I can relate to how you feel, but please be aware that no-one (okay, almost no-one) at wikipedia is out to destroy your work. ANd I know that TTN comes across as ignoring people who state that they will improve an article. Please note that nine out of ten people saying so never do, so TTN has reason to belief that most of the promises he hears each day will not be kept. If you really had the intention to work on the article, you can work in your userspace and revive the article as soon as it has significant (sourced!) real-world content. Despite what he may seem, TTN is also human with a good heart somewhere (as are most of us), and he has not re-redirected any articles that have been significantly improved. If it helps with your perspective, just try to prove TTN wrong by making Scrub Day (Even Stevens) a kick-ass article. If you cannot, then TTN will seem right. That's all I can do for you. (I am currently working on transwiki'ing Stargate SG-1 episode articles so that they are save from the episode reviews. You can check in a few hours at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate. If you then also want to "save" your plot summaries by transwiki'ing, I can help you, it's surprisingly easy. Just ask. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't prove TTN wrong by making it a kick-ass article, because he tagged it for redirection(really just another form of deletion) before I could do anything with it, and when he tags an article for deletion, it's guaranteed to be deleted no matter what anybody does. He does this with EVERYBODY. All this talk of "significant real-world content," sourced or otherwise is a crock, because even when there are sources, he and others like him delete them, plus too often the deletionists keep changing their minds about reliable and non-reliable sources. Had I been able to gather the evidence of this, and other issues, I would've been willing to add this reply to my section, rather than add it to yours. For this I apologize. As for the notion that transwiki'ing articles is so easy, if that were true, there would be an Even Stevens Wiki installed by now. I submitted some former articles to a section of Wikia, and asked for help in correcting a title and NOBODY replied. I've heard plenty of promises by other users to help with saving articles and images, but so far nobody has fulfilled a single one. ----DanTD 15:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your "I couldn't prove TTN wrong by making it a kick-ass article, because he tagged it for redirection(really just another form of deletion) before I could do anything with it". You know that you can still retrieve the former content? It's here for Scrub Day (Even Stevens). Nothing is deleted. And TTN did not redirect Crackers Don't Matter (a Farscape episode) again after it got extended to include real world information. As for your other questions, "reliable" sources are pretty much everything with editorial oversight, e.g. all major newspapers (on- and offline), major magazines (on- and offline) and of course published books. TV.com, TV squad and fan wikis are not considered reliable because they don't have editorial oversight. Audio commentaries and any kind of producer comments (blogs, forum posts, podcasts) are generally accepted as reliable. If there is no Even Stevens wikia, start it yourself. I didn't really know how to transwiki until two days ago, but with two hours of work, I got it right. It may not work for you immediately, but if I can do it, you can do it (there's a tutorial at wikia, it seems). It's not an excuse to unload stuff on wikipedia just because you don't know where else to. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There were people trying to improve of the articles tagged for redirection and deletion before the were deleted, and I wasn't the only one. This is why I said I could prove him wrong, and it wouldn't matter. I've also heard you, TTN, and others claim that newspapers and magazines are considered reliable sources, and yet I've heard other deletionists say that they mean nothing. Plus, there's still the question of how long online editions of these newspaper & magazine articles can stay online, and who can see them. At the same time, even they get aspects of TV shows wrong from time to time, which shouldn't say much for how reliable they are. You say if there's no Even Stevens Wikia, I should start one myself, but I tried that back in September, and that effort failed miserably. Like I said, nobody there would help me. So, as skeptical as I may be, if you're offering to help out, I'll gladly accept it. ----DanTD 17:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Even Stevens wikia

Hey, thanks a lot. I was hoping to separate it from the rest of the Disney wikia, and I wanted the images to go with it, but I'll take what I can get for now. ----DanTD 18:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just took a look at these: [4] [5] and think this may be a reasonable way of dealing with the heaps of dross underfoot, but am wondering how widespread use of this squares with WP:SPAM — i.e. does wikia get a pass on endless link-spam? --Jack Merridew 06:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Conflict of interest with Wikia links. I very much agree with Masem's reply. The problem at the moment is not the wikia "spam", or that wikia generates profit for Jimbo, but that we need to start somewhere and get it into people's minds that wikipedia is not the place for unsourced fancruft. (E.g. up until May, I thought it was, and contributed some unsourced fancruft myself. I only started to "see the light" when I got more serious with article writing.) My take: if the cost of getting rid of a subpar article and making a passionate fan happy is to add a wikia link, then so be it. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks. I forgot to check back here, so I'm rather tardy. I just commented there re nofollow. I do agree that stuff needs to move off this wiki — and I see you had a lot to do with the stargate stuff moving — but am concerned about the inherent COI this entails. Even if there is not an explicit plan (and I'm not willing to assume that there isn't), there is an appearance of a COI and this needs to be avoided. Don't forget that internet advertising is literally a trillion dollar business. --Jack Merridew 13:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel the tradeoff with using wikia is better than avoiding using wikia, at least for the moment. Yes, without wikia, there would be no risk of COI. But also, without wikia and transwikiing (and the instilled belief that a wiki editor's contributions are still easily accessible), there will be no collaboration in cleanup. Without cleanup, we still have a messy wikipedia and have got nowhere. Without collaboration, we'll have assumptions of bad faith and the next arbcom case knocking on the door. I would like to assure you that the wikia links are just temporary, but if I did, collaboration with fans would stop immediately and I/we would be back to square one. Using wikia in the meantime just helps to give fans an outlet, or at least make them aware that their in-universe contributions are much more valued off-wiki instead of on-wikia. Wikipedians like TTN got the ball rolling. I now prefer these major changes to be as seemless as possible and prevent the ball from hitting the wall frontal before it even gained speed. It's no problem to cut the wikia links in two years if it turns out to be a major COI problem, while anything else just puts off the problem and even makes it worse. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job on the Friends redirects. A Barnstar in the offing for you I think. Have you seen this debate, btw? It neatly encapsulates all the issues: editors who simply prefer to ignore policy and consensus in the face of their individual predilection for fan-driven content. Eusebeus 13:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I am aware of the Firefly merge discussion because I had already tried my best in the AfD (I recommended merging the characters with trimmed plot). I repeated my statements in the following (this) merge discussion by citing policies and guidelines, but I feel my time is wasted to argue the points to deaf ears again and again. There is much more merging to be done in other wiki areas where my contributions are more embraced (or even go unnoticed because I generally don't make a big fuzz). So unless I see a turn of events in the Firefly merge discussion (it's on my watch list), I'll save me the wikistress there and let time work against the keep !votes (like on the Friends ep list). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit troubled by your comments here. AFD is not a means to force article cleanup. Sources do exist, so the topic is notable. If no one has added them after a few weeks, then you can pitch in and do it yourself.

I will try to get it eventually, but I don't have the time or interest to rewrite every article I defend at AFD. Things are especially crazy now, with the marathon WP:FICTION nominations. Zagalejo^^^ 20:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My reply is at the AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hello... A GA review can (functionally) be the same as a Hold.. in that it gives you at least one week and potentially even longer to address any problems or concerns (if addressing them is warranted; perhaps the reviewer was mistaken.. in this particular case, perhaps I was mistaken).
• I didn't put the article on Hold 'cause I thought it would take too long to fix, but again (as per your replies), maybe I overestimated the time required...
• I disagree with your arguments regarding in-universe, but hey, I have been wrong at least once before in my 42 years. We'll see. ;-)
• I hope my tone doesn't sound too pointed. I really do think FA articles should not necessarily be held up as a standard. The rules (or guidelines, or...) are the standard. And even those rules can be set aside in (hopefully rare) cases where necessity or common sense dictates doing so.
• Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

oops, didn't see it. I'll look now... sorry for the slip-up! Ling.Nut (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all you have done for wikipedia but i must ask to find out why from series 1-4 of stargate SG-1 there are only 2 pages for episodes: Where have they gone? Why have they gone? And if they need to go why are only some gone? I found them Useful to find out more about stargate SG-1 and not many places are telling you things that arn't shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littledaniel 93 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I explained it at Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and WT:STARGATE. Short answer: Wikipedia's notability guidelines have become stricter, and there are currently efforts to remove many hundreds of episode articles, first and foremost those that do not establish notability as outlined in WP:NOTABILITY and/or WP:EPISODE. The first three seasons of SG-1 do not have audio commentaries, and so it is/would be especially hard for them to write a sourced production and reception section for them. Instead, I transwikied them to wikia where they are safe (you can access them by clicking on "wikia" next to each episode's name). If you believe some episodes of the first three seasons can establish notability (preferably because you have access to to companion books, fan magazine, or believe that certain DVD features can provide secondary material), you are free (and even encouraged) to recreate the articles. There is no hard and fast rule which and how many episode articles SG-1 can have on wikipedia, but at least the majority should establish notability in some way. Hope this helps. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My offer stands, thanks for noticing I've been away! I'm just coming to the end of a placement for my course and things are a little intense work wise. I finish on Friday and have a busy weekend (socially). However from Monday onwards I'm free and hope to get some more editing done over the holidays. I'll put a note in my diary and have a look Monday if thats not too late?--Opark 77 (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've copy edited the Mytology article today. Good luck with the FTC, the work deserves it.--Opark 77 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You are the nominator of a WP:FL that was promoted in the last month. I am inviting you to participate in nominations and voting in a List of the Day experiment I am conducting at WP:LOTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I decided to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banik as "keep with possible merge", as there didn't seem to be a clear indication of which articles should be merged together. As such, I have not restored the Ancients and Peacekeepers articles as you requested in your note. I think that discussion on merging should occur on the article talk pages of affected articles. If there is a consensus at that time that the Ancients and Peacekeepers articles should be restored, we can go through a deletion review. (I don't think I can just restore them outside of process, even if discussion on their AFDs was meager)--Danaman5 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Stay tuned to this channel for intelligently spoken, well-measured, understanding, and patient discussion from this Very Special Editor. Still willing? Still impressing? Here, here. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have userfied the content to User:sgeureka/Ancients (Farscape) and User:sgeureka/Peacekeeper (Farscape) so that you can work on a merged version with the full history availible. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll work on it in the coming days. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I chopped away at some of the excessive plot in 2 Stargate episodes that are still standalone, but I have to say I cannot for the life of me detect any notability at all. Eusebeus (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I redirected these two episodes in my transwiki process, but someone wanted them to be resurrected (probably because 1x03 is the conclusion of the pilot, and the other ep establishes a major part of the in-universe mythology). I think it's a good act of faith to let these articles be for one or two more months until I am done with the full transwiki and can attempt a final, stricter sweep. I can relate to people wanting to let go in steps instead of facing a complete loss, so I'll extend this courtesy and only later say, "two months, no improvement, goodbye" like a certain deletionist would do. I'm just doing my SG-1 fan duty to not later appear like a hypocrit when/if an SG-1 episode review comes up. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. If my chopping is too severe, please feel free to revert me. You've done good work on this and I salute your efforts. Ausgezeichnet! Eusebeus (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sgeureka, how are things going? I noticed your article at FAC on the mythology of Carnivale and I'm working my way through it. I've been meaning to watch that show, but am always turned off by the fact that it was never completed as six seasons. Though it seems to have quite a following so I'm reconsidering. But to a matter of minor importance, would you mind reviewing the list of works by William Monahan that is right now a candidate at FAC?-BillDeanCarter (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm already caught by the article on its Mythology and I think I'm going to see about watching the first season over the break. In your previous comments about Bruno Maddox I see Outriggr helped out. I haven't quite understood why he retired. Some flare-up over Veropedia. Anyhow, thanks in advance for the review of the list of works. If you have an opinion about whether or not it really belongs at WP:FLC or WP:FAC please speak up in the candidacy article.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I rented the DVDs, and am at ep 6. I'm enjoying it so far. I was wondering about the Image:Map_USA_Carnivale_Route.PNG image you created. Is it finished? It doesn't mark the first route from Milfay till Babylon. It also doesn't mark some of the fictional towns, like Babylon, and Lonnigan, Texas. You could color-code the routes, depending on which seasons or which storylines they appear in. You could even give the fictional towns a colored dot for fictional. But a useful image either way.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you like the show so far, then it's likely you'll like the rest. :-) The show not always makes mention where exactly the fictional locations are, which is unfortunate. I only found a French website once that listed a few more locations, but I couldn't verify all of these with wikipedia and/or maps.google.com. An earlier version of "my" map had a route drawn in (note that I used the real Loving, New Mexico instead of the fictional location then, so the route is off), but I thought it was too much guesswork in the end so I dropped it. All location notes are referenced with dialogue (in the reference section), although it was longer once, when I hadn't found proof for Babylon being in Texas. Long story short: Everything that I could verify is in the episode list, although I could theoretically draw in some kind of (colored) dashed lines between known locations. I'll think about it. (If it wasn't for MS Paint being the only of my image editors that can deal with PNGs.) – sgeureka ^t•c 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps note in a legend or a footnote that the colored dot indicates a fictional town and it's location has been approximated based on the route south (or even Regression analysis). I mean those fictional towns can't be far off of an imagined route going south and it would be great to see all the towns up on the map. Anyways, I am enjoying this show and you've put up an incredible amount of information to follow the show with. They should really finish off the series as six seasons.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the new image revision? – sgeureka ^t•c 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks great. I haven't seen past ep 6 now, but I wonder if there are any points when they say, we're going hard west. There's a lot of dialogue from the characters about just going south (last scene, ep 6), so you could possibly improve the trajectory by using some of that and therefore pinpoint some of those fictional towns. Do they ever say they're heading west now? Are you interested in adding the fictional towns, because I could look out for such fictional travel information.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, all character quotes about locations are either in the article, or used to, so you can just sit back and enjoy the show. The carnival is going south until Babylon (episode 5+6), which according to the dialog is somewhere on the route between Tipton, Oklahoma and El Paso, Texas. I googled and wikied Samson's and Jonesy's "Stay on 54, pick up Route 66 to 27 south. [...]" – "Through Texas? [...] It's gonna take us awful close to Babylon." ("Tipton"), but I didn't come up with anything definite except for Route 66, obviously. Further improving the route on the map only improves my guess, but be my guest. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 19:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite a shocking season finale. I'm preparing to watch the rest of season 2 and then comment on the Mythology of Carnivale article. I don't know why it was removed at FAC after only a single comment. It gives me a chance to review it now at its next nomination but seems like the FAC closing was a little too soon.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent, but reply) Well, I see see your nom was closed as well, but not for the lack of support. :-) Me, I kind of expected this result for Mythology, but I only ever wanted to achieve Featured Topic anyway (thanks for your support there), for which GA is enough. I'll probably wait one or two months, then (unfortunately) resort to asking around for some backup from wikifriends and try again. I believe the quality is there. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You should probably ask SandyGeorgia on her talk page to keep it around. No one Opposed it, no one Supported it, just a single comment. It looks fairly good, but I'm trying not to look to closely at it atm. Do that, rather than wait. There really was no good reason to close your FAC.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Was_my_nomination_closed_too_early.3F (Dec 18) says it's common to close FACs early when there is a lack of review participation. Too bad for me, but I'll try later, hopefully with a stronger backing. No worries. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Well, when I'm finished watching the series I'll leave a review on the talk page of the Mythology article.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I find that you have reverted my edit on 'Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines' because of the reason 'edit created 50% empty space in the template', I use opera v 9.50 Alpha at 800 x 600 resolution, I have tested the template on IE v 7.0.5xxx.11 and Mozilla v 2.0.0.11 at same resolution and have not faced the problem as mentioned by you. It seems that you use resolution above 800 x 600 as on changing the resolution of my screen to 1024 x 768 I started facing the problem as mentioned by you (However on using the current version of template in 800 x 600 resolution makes half of the template outside horizontal page limit). Recently I have made similar edits [6] , [7] , [8] etc. however my edits were not reverted nor reported (I may add that few of the templates that I edited were used at many different article). It seems to me that the reason for the apparent 'conflict' is due to 'screen resolution' differences between users, I would like to request you to suggest changes so as to find a solution LegalEagle (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have in fact a resolution of 1400x900 widescreen. This is how "my" version looks for me, and this is "yours". From your given similar edits, only the second ([9]) looks good, because of the align=center. My personal preference is to let the screen resolution regulate the look, and not introduce the <br> at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. Though I am tempted to agree with your suggestion on letting the screen resolution regulate the look of templates, I would like to point out that users having lower resolution would need to unnecessarily drag their pages to be able to properly view the template (if possible pls lower your resolution to 800 x 600 and chk my edit), while if the <br> edit is effected the higher resolution screen would be asthetically harmed (as you have rightly proved) but there is no user discomfiture. So I shall request you to reconsider your decision about the revert. LegalEagle (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What, do I understand this right that you have to use a vertical horizontal scrollbar to see/use the template properly ("would need to unnecessarily drag their pages")? Because this would suck big time and requires something to be done. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You have perfectly understood the problem (but it is the horizontal scrollbar that needs to be dragged), and as you have said this is disturbing as after a change to the navbox template source all the templates are geared towards higher resolution screens (if not tempered with <br> edit). I would like to hear what you propose to do now LegalEagle (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant horizontal, sorry. We can of course go back to your version in this case. This discussion should be continued at the template talk page; maybe someone can help out with the wiki markup so that everything looks good for low-res wikipedians even without the use of <br>. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for support, I have copied the discussion to the template talkpage hope the sysops would also come forward and find some meaningful solution so that, as you have put, 'low-res wikipedians' can also use the other templates without much hassle. LegalEagle (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Can you tell me why you removed the Wikiquote link from this article and replaced it with two unnecessary sections? The 'Production' section is not needed, as this episode was produced like any other SG-1 epsiode - indoor work at Bridge Studios, Vancouver, location shooting around British Columbia; and the Reception section is unnecessary unless the episode was particularly controversial - which it wasn't. I think I may know why you removed the image, but could you confirm that too, please? Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the wikiquote was by accident, and I apologize. These two "unnecessary" sections are in fact necessary per WP:EPISODE to justify the article (i.e. to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY). I considered the extra image unnecessary per WP:UNFREE as there already is another image, and there is no critical commentary in the article (other than WP:Original Research which is not allowed on wikipedia). If there isn't anything about Production and Reception soon (very soon), the article will be redirected like any of the many other episodes of the many other TV shows that cannot / do not establish notability. That's also why I am transwikiing all articles (see Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and WT:STARGATE). If you want to work on the article to improve it to something like Zero Hour (Stargate SG-1) (which is still not perfect), just tell me, and I won't redirect the article for now. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been proposed that WP:EPISODE be merged into WP:WAF. Your input is desired, so please comment here. Ursasapien (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain this edit, as the link you provided is dead and from what I can see it has no basis. However, I will leave the edit in place until you reply. Thank you in advance for your swift response. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

See the last few discussion threads of Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and the last few discussion threads of WT:STARGATE, where this has been discussed in the past few weeks. My edit sumamry should have pointed at WP:EPISODE, but I didn't notice my typo at the time. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed at the link above. The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.

For the Arbitration Committee,
— Rlevse • Talk • 14:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with the redirect now - as long as it's been transwikied, I'm okay with it. I just didn't want to content to be lost forever - if the links to the Wikia remain on the Season list page, I'm happy. Thanks for handling this calmly, there are many editors who would have turned a simple disagreement into a flame war resulting in 3RR and arbitration invocations. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)