User talk:sgeureka/Archive05

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:

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)

Re: Premiere

Just to say thanks for your copyediting the broadcast and reception sections. I have added a cite for the {{fact}} you'd marked. Is there anything else I should be doing short of studying Tony1s 1a guide. You've put more work into this than what I could possibly expect from a copyedit request, and am extremely grateful. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, really. I still plan on copyediting the "Popular culture" section, will tweak the lead then, and do a final read-through. You can try for a FAC then, but it's likely that other editors will still spot many minor things that need to be fixed before the article gets its star. Be prepared to answer "What makes source X reliable"-type questions - for example, what makes "http://dmca.free.fr/" reliable? (It seems like a transcript on a non-reliable fansite, and the article can do without it since the episode itself can be used as a source.) – sgeureka t•c 15:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the transcript. I believe the seeing-stars one is justified well enough in both PRs, but I guess the only way I'll know for sure will actually be at FAC, as I am sure it will come up. I have asked Ealdgyth to take a look at that particular source. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've done what I could. I left one {{fact}} where the ref got lost somewhere for a quote (you should be able to pull it back up from the page history). In case you are British (there were four British spellings that I changed to American English), you should ask an American editor for a read-through before going to FAC 8although I did a spell-check for AE). I can recommend the nice and skilled fiction editors User:Thedemonhog, User:David Fuchs, User:Masem and (British) User:Sceptre, who may be willing to spare five minutes for a basic read-through and extra tips. Good luck. – sgeureka t•c 15:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I've found that ref and asked another editor for to check for AmEng, as you correctly noticed some instances of my BrEng finding their way into the text. Your advice throughout has been very helpful, so thank you! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is now at FAC, do you wish to comment on anything? I didn't tell you immediately as I thought it might be construed as canvassing, but seeing as it hasn't received many comments in the week it has been open I thought I'd ask. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll drop by after reading the article again. I am generally reluctant to do anything where I might be accused of being motivated by a COI, but a stating my previous involvement with the article there will do. – sgeureka t•c 09:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks, but if you don't feel comfortable commenting due to a COI I understand. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Frasier episodes

Hello, Sgeureka. You have new messages at Talk:List of Frasier episodes.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Friends GAN

Yay, thanks for reviewing! :) I'll try get on the comments later tonight, but as you mentioned the article is quite long (still can't believe I managed to actually write it!), so I may need a while. Anyways, thanks. :D Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion

Hahaha, lol, no worries. Take as long as you need. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the article is almost done, so please take a look. Actually, the main reason I came here was for your admin tools (mwuahaha). Could you please delete my following sandboxes:
Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 11:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thank you so much for the review and the pass! Once again, it was a pleasure working with you. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 02:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

RfA thanks

The X-Files

Sgeureka, it looks like you deleted an article I created, Lazarus (The X-Files). Basically, you reverted the hard work I had done to create the article, done because I noticed that this particular X-Files episode didn't have its own article. I started working on it this morning, went to work, came back home to our internet access being down, had to wait several hours before it came back up, and discovered what you had done! I promise, my intention was to return to it as soon as I was able (which was tonight) and complete it. If you hadn't deleted it, that's exactly what I would've done. So please could you un-delete it or whatever the process is to return it to what I think is its rightful place? Then I could work on it some more and perhaps it'd be up to the quality you probably expect. Thanks. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not delete the article; it's still there as a WP:REDIRECT. You can see the page history including explanatory edit summaries at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lazarus_(The_X-Files)&action=history (you get there by clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the page), and you can see all old article versions by clicking on the date stamps there. The discussion to merge/redirect all X-Files episode articles with little content took place at Talk:List_of_The_X-Files_episodes#Proposed_merger.2Fredirect_of_episodes, which I had linked when I merged/redirected the article for the first time. Your article version contained even less info than the former article, so I redirected it again with another explanation. You can restore any merged/redirected episode article any time, but then the articles are expected to be improved/expanded beyond what does/can appear in the List of episodes or season article. This usually means writing non-trivial sections for production and reception using reliable sources. If you are unsure how much info is widely accepted as sufficient for a stand-alone episode article, you'll find hundreds of good examples at Wikipedia:Good_articles#Television_episodes. I hope this helps. – sgeureka t•c 07:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tutorial. I'm not an administrator (and to be honest, don't have any desire to become one), so there's still lots of policies I know nothing about. I probably should've used my sandbox before putting the article out there. I hope to have it fit for general consumption in the next day or two. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Sgeueka, I completed my draft of this episode. I was gonna just go ahead and re-create it, but then I actually read the discussion on the List of episodes talk page you cite above, and stopped myself. Would you mind looking at what I've done here, and tell me if it's expanded enough? Thanks again. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite your sources for the production info (companion guides, TV guides, magazines, DVD features,...)? That's a thing many people look for when deciding if to merge or delete, because most non-plot non-fan sources automatically satisfy WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:RS/[WP:V]]/WP:OR for fiction articles. The last two production points are weak and might count as trivia that can be removed. Still, I would no longer to merge your article version if brought back (since I said I'd only merge/redirect the clear cases), but someone else may try later (in a year, five years or ten). – sgeureka t•c 09:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there is no XF cabal or project or whatever. I'd like to become part of one, but I'm in the middle of some other Wiki-projects, some of which are pretty long-term, and my RL concerns really prevent that for me right now. The reason I created the Lazarus article was that I figured it'd be a short project (a couple of hours), I was burnt-out on another article and needed a short break, and because I noticed that there seems to be a need for more articles about TXF. Oh, and it's been awhile since I've earned a DYK. If there was a project, then the issues brought up, especially by CGLF, could be addressed there. I simply don't have the time to do the research that's required, but not all XF episode articles are well-sourced, anyway. They're start articles, full of non-sourced material like the article I created. There's a reason start articles are called that; they're a way to start an article off, and hopefully more reliable sources will be added later. It sounds like a fun project. Personally, I think it's more important to have complete episode articles, at least at first, and then they could improved later on. I believe that's what other TV projects have done, and I think it's a good idea to follow their example. That being said, I'll go ahead and un-merge the article. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't oppose the unmerger. But in my experience, creating dozens or hundreds of stub- or start-class for all episodes of a show is a very poor form. No-one will ever come around and improve them to encyclopedic minimum standards (i.e. not violate NOT#PLOT and N), and the articles are doomed to suck into eternity. Season articles act as a good compromise between extended/in-depth [plot] coverage and sticking to policies and guidelines, until someone invests time on writing an episode article of sufficient quality. :-) – sgeureka t•c 09:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I think it's fine the way it is; but maybe the guest stars can be left out, if you want to. CGLF (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Userbox for GA reviews

The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using

{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}

which displays as

This user has reviewed 6 Good Article nominations on Wikipedia.

There is more information on how to do this at Template:User Good Articles reviewed.

Note: If you are not interested in doing this, you don't have to do anything; the template will still work for you exactly as it does now.

Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Building 26

Since wikipedia works on the WP:Assume good faith principle, good-faith efforts and volunteering for article improvement can often avert deletion or merger attempts for a significant time. But action is the only thing that matters in the end, and I hope you stick around to prove the article's assumed potential. :-) – sgeureka t•c 20:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hows this?; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Building_26&oldid=272340027
Better yes? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The lead is actually quite good now, but the article is still lacking much of what it needs most (to satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT): non-trivial production or reception info. But since the ep just aired, this info might not even exist yet (and thus can't be added). An experienced wikipedian said to me when I was still a newbie, "Plot doesn't matter." (His thought process was unclear to me back then, but I have come to understand and agree with it now.) Think about how the article would look if you removed the whole plot summary, and work from there to improve the quality. – sgeureka t•c 21:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I still like don't get it. Do you think that maybe I should do a very brief plot. But take some of the plotish and put it under other headings. Like have one heading that is Character development and have stuff about how the characters have developed this episode, and another showing the episode advancement in the volume (Nathan's acquisition of more funding in this episode paves the way for limitless supplies for his project in future episodes).
Or what?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
My point is, forget about the plot and focus on adding sourced non-trivial production or reception info (i.e. real-world information). An article that consists almost entirely of plot is considered unencyclopedic per WP:NOT#PLOT. If no non-trivial production and reception info can be added, then the episode is also non-notable (WP:N). In that case, it should not have a stand-alone article at all and should instead be summarized in a season article or episode list. (I do realize that many episode articles on wikipedia lack real-world information too, but there are on-going efforts to fix that.) If you are an enthusiastic Heroes fan who likes the wiki principle but does not care about wikipedia's real-world focus on fiction, have you considered joining a Heroes fan wiki? You can find several fan projects through Google. – sgeureka t•c 09:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Meh, fan wikis are lame, plus i dno who reads them.... How about building 26 now? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It's the right direction, but it seem like there (still) isn't much information that one doesn't gain by just watching the episode. I'll examine the current real-world information:
  1. "Building 26" was the second episode directed by Sergio Mimica-Gezzan. - trivial, can be covered in List of Heroes episodes
  2. Both the episodes are in season 3 and are the third chapters of a volume; volume 3 and 4 respectively. With One of Us, One of Them being the other episode. - trivial, can be mentioned in List of Heroes episodes as Continued in One of Us, One of Them".
  3. This episode was also the second written by Rob Fresco, the first of which was eight episodes previous in Villains. Fresco has however been a consulting producer for five episodes, all of which are in season 3, volume 3. - trivial and/or unimportant for the episode, can and should be covered in Heroes, List of Heroes episodes and Rob Fresco
  4. This episode is the first appearance by Alex Woolsley (Justin Baldoni), a comic book worker with the ability to breathe underwater (Similar to Namor and Aquaman). Issue 125 of the graphic novel series follows on from the characters introduction in the episode, and is a story about the character.[4] - borderline non-trivial. Can be summarized in the plot summary, although List of characters in Heroes sounds like the better target for such information
  5. The episode was viewed by 7.898 million people and was NBC's fourth most-watched program that week, only losing to The Office, The Biggest Loser, and a special Dateline.[5] - borderline non-trivial, can be covered in an episode list, see e.g. Lost_(season_4)
  6. The episode has received a rating of 7.0/10 from IMDb, derived from about 150 votes.[6] It also earned a 7.8/10 rating on TV.com. [7] - insignificant and unreliable, should be removed
– sgeureka t•c 11:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this and this

You say to merge or redirect to "main article." What "main article"? The character appears in two films and a novel. Saying it's "non-notable" is odd given that a Google Book search shows dozens of hits in secondary sources analyzing the novel and the characters while Google News shows dozens of hits reviewing the film and its characters. There's enough from interviews where development sections are realistic, as are reception sections, and comparisons from novel versus film. Please reconsider. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead says he is a character in Bridge to Terabithia, the article Bridge to Terabithia exists, and there is a suitable character list at Bridge to Terabithia#Characters, problem of the main article solved. (A newly created character list will also do the job of a main article, but too many AfDs have been rejected because "there wasn't a merge target", so I didn't mention it.) I didn't say the character was non-notable, I said the article doesn't establish notability. If someone wants to write a decent article on this character that overturns my four concerns for a stand-alone article, I'll gladly change my !vote. If not, then there is no point in reconsidering my !vote. – sgeureka t•c 17:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Again there's Bridge to Terabithia (novel), Bridge_to_Terabithia_(1985_film), and Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film). The character article is relevant to all three of these. Not any one is the clear redirect location. In fact the character article serves as a gateway to these different adaptations. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, there is Bridge to Terabithia (which redirects to Bridge to Terabithia (novel), but that's beyond the point as it automatically defines the primary meaning). If you don't like this as the main article, feel free to create List of Bridge to Terabithia characters or turn the redirect Bridge to Terabithia into a series article. None of this changes that Leslie Burke doesn't have a good reason (in my eyes) to exist as a stand-alone article [yet]. – sgeureka t•c 17:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have begun revising both: [1] and [2]. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have changed my !vote for Leslie Burke accordingly, but have left my merger recommendation for the other character as it doesn't pass my personal threshhold for a stand-alone article. Having said that, I value your efforts. – sgeureka t•c 10:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for keeping an open-mind. I am not unwilling to work on a list as proposed above; however, in the past if I ever tried merging something during an AfD, a few accounts cried foul, so it's probably best to wait for anything like tha until afterwards. Anyway, regarding Jesse Aarons, please note that I have added some additional out of universe information on development and reception. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Tom Tucker (Family Guy)

I've opened a merge discussion at the above-mentioned location. Please consider participating if you are interested. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Images

I'm not sure you should have moved all those Manhattan Beach images to Commons. I have been in email contact with the author, and they were uploaded without his permission. I only got him to agree to release the image being used in Premiere (The O.C.) which I uploaded to Commons this morning. That image is OTRS pending as he gave permission, the others however were originally uploaded without his permission and he hasn't release them. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I only learned about the weirdness of these images after I had uploaded them to commons. Because of the poor quality of the photos, the consistent camera model and the experience of User:Evanthomas1, I saw no reason to assume that he lied about being the original photographer. joelleleder.com doesn't exist, and the images don't show up at http://www.justdaisy.com/product_page.asp?ProductCatID=38 and http://www.justdaisy.com/product_page.asp?ProductCatID=5 , so that hints that the images were uploaded correctly and with a copyleft license to wikipedia also. For the Commons upload, I used http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonshelper.php to assure correct attribution, and I read WP:CSD#F8 carefully before deleting the images from wikipedia. Have you found evidence that justdaisy.com really holds the copyright? If so, the images should be deleted from wikipedia and Commons. Otherwise, my Commons upload was done correctly (as far as my Commons and attribution knowledge/experience goes). – sgeureka t•c 14:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
No. In fact I should apologise for not checking the ones you uploaded. I must say I jumped to the conclusion that all the Manhattan images may have had inappropriate copyrights after the one I was working with did. I contacted Joelle about the particular image used in Premiere and he said the photo uploaded by Evanthomas1 "was taken off my JustDaisy.com website without my permission and added to Wiki a while back" and that the "only thing I knew how to change it was to add my copyright." That particular image is on his website (http://www.justdaisy.com/about.asp) so I assumed the other images, which had similar upload patterns and details may have also been dubious. I cannot find any evidence that the other images are copyvios, and so I must humbly apologise. I made too many assumptions. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
...And I hadn't scrolled down far enough on http://www.justdaisy.com/about.asp to find the image that you had referred to [somewhere]. Per the logs, Evanthomas1 had uploaded the image on 21 August 2006, although http://web.archive.org/web/20030812081021/http://justdaisy.com/about.asp clearly proves that the image was already displayed on justdaisy.com in August 2003. Looking closer at Evanthomas1's talkpage, someone has already asked about the inconsistancy at User_talk:Evanthomas1#File:Mb_pier_south.jpg in February. This, of course raises new questions. I guess I'll drop him an email explaining where his images came from, just to be on the safe side (Manhattan Beach seems his major wiki interest). – sgeureka t•c 16:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Burn Notice episodes

Hi there. I noticed that you tagged a bunch of Burn Notice episodes with {{notability}}. While you are perfectly right in that they are not notable, I was hoping that they could be kept up per this and this. Thanks :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to do anything to the articles for the next few months, and if I do, I'll announce my plans beforehand and seek consensus. I just want to get the ball rolling for whatever cleanup measures (encyclopedic expansion, merging, ...) seem appropriate later. – sgeureka t•c 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

redirect

Hi Sqeureka, I don't know if you remember me or not - it was around the hectic time that you were in RfA. I wanted to work on the season 1 episode Emancipation (Stargate SG-1). Anyway, I did my first redirect from NPP, and wondered if you'd check to make sure I did everything right - I remembered because I converted back after I/we couldn't find enough coverage on the SG-1 Episode. If it's fine, great - or if it needs something addressed that I missed - let me know. Just wanted to have some oversight ... thanks ;) — Ched ~ (yes?) 07:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine and works fine. :-) – sgeureka t•c 08:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

German

Would you mind dong me a favour? Would you look over this link and tell me what, if anything, it has to say about the Battlestar episode "33"? I can tell as much to know that it's an interview with a BSG composer, but I'm not sure exactly what he's saying about the particular episode. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The link is a direct translation of composer Bear McCreary's blog ( http://www.bearmccreary.com/blog/ ), in particular his March 7th, 2009 entry ( http://www.bearmccreary.com/blog/?p=1671#more-1671 ). I think no back-translation is necessary. :-) – sgeureka t•c 19:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Let it develop"

Hello! Just looking at the template does not fully indicate its purpose, as it requires arguments to achieve its full effect, for example: I hope this clarifies that it's not a willy-nilly "leave this alone" request. We are seeking to create a template which requests dialog with the appropriate editorial community prior to nominating an article for deletion. What is different here is that we provide a specific pointer where to go. After discussion, if an editor still feels an article should be deleted, they are obviously free to nominate it. Thank you. PetersV       TALK 17:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

But isn't it evident from the intro sentence of an article to whom the article may be of interest? Don't most editors (of any language or nationality) already know that they may be largely unfamiliar with an article relating to different countries? Haven't most deletion-savvy editors got some common sense or at least have read WP:BEFORE before AfDing an article? This template wouldn't accomplish anything for the majority of wikipedians (besides making an article look ugly), and the rotten-apples editors will either be told off at their first poor-form AfD, or they'll never learn. (The more I think about this template, the more reasons I find why it shouldn't exist, but I don't want to bore you. :-)) – sgeureka t•c 18:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Do you have any suggestions on how we can reach a consensus on the info box discussion currently raging in Captain Kirk? Erikeltic (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not have a quick solution. I've already shared my views on the inclusion limits in infoboxes, and my Star Trek knowledge is limited to judge the notability of fan productions otherwise. From my quick look at the debate, it seems the problem is that the debate has reached a point where only the most interested editors are discussing amongst each other and now go in circles. What may help is to consciously avoid saying or replying to things that have already been said. That way, it may become obvious that the discussion has run its course and ends in no consensus for now. The discussion can then be reopened in about three months, likely with other editors with new opinions. If there is currently only one editor opposing the rough local consensus, his only chance to defy that consensus is to get into a one-sided edit war without backup and he will get blocked pretty quickly, i.e. the discussion will be ended by force. A third but bureaucratic and time-consuming way is to open an RfC, and if that can't gain consensus, a medcab case. – sgeureka t•c 10:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

South Park list of episodes

I noticed your username in relation to redirects for Frasier episodes to a list of episodes. I'm trying to arrange the same for the List of South Park episodes, but there's a lot of emotive talk on the talk page. Might you drop by and add some rationale to the whole thing? Thanks either way. Alastairward (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you already have, thanks for the support. Alastairward (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

advice por favor?

I'm involved in a slow-motion edit war with Edokter (talk · contribs) at the article 33 (Battlestar Galactica) over the sourcing of three characters of information. I contend that the Verifiability policy requires it be reliably sourced, whereas he and another editor argue that the information is "trivial" and doesn't need any sourcing. Edokter has expressed his intent to continue to edit war over this point, and I see nothing to gain by doing so except to exacerbate the situation, however I also don't want to allow the explicit inclusion of unsourced information in an article, regardless of it's "triviality".

What do you suggest? This doesn't seem to warrant the immediacy or urgency of the administrator's noticeboard, and though an argument between editors as to whether or not we should apply a core policy would seem cut-and-dried, I don't know where to take the issue next. Thanks. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read the discussion threads at Talk:33 (Battlestar Galactica) and WT:V. I think you (pd THOR) tapped into something that needs a major discussion at WT:TV, because the problem exists for nearly every TV show. Yes, the production code is trivial, and yes, it can be assumed to be identical with the airing order unless evidence exists for the contrary. However, wikipedia can/should only have information that is verfiable.
The only show where I know that the production code is completely and easily verifiable is The Simpsons. That's why I tend to remove the "production code" column from Lists of episodes that I work on, and replace it with a second episode numbering column (so that e.g. the first column is 1->44 and the second column has 101->122 & 201->222). I never noticed that the prod code is also part of TV episode infoboxes, so I never removed them from there. If I were in your position, I'd leave the prod code matter of "33" alone for a month just so that everybody can get a clear head again. Then I'd open a thread at WT:TV, describe the problem, and seek consensus for how wikipedia should deal with this issue on a large scale. A/The ideal solution would be to strongly discourage any mentions of the prod code unless it is sourceable for the whole show (like with The Simpsons), and to encourage the use the two humbering system of episodes instead. – sgeureka t•c 10:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Chase Meridian merge

Hello, you recently expressed an interest in merging the article for Chase Meridian. There is a proposal for this here. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motif of harmful sensation (2 nomination)

Howdy, Sgeureka!

With regard to this AfD, I'm concerned that you may have missed the part of the discussion where I did provide evidence that this is covered in reliable sources. Please reconsider.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All three sources represent instances, but they are no proof that these instances make up this concept discussed in reliable sources. Taken as standalone-sources, [3] is a news report, [4] seems to draw from wikipedia (it mentions it right in the introduction) and otherwise discusses Medusa and Basilisk, and [5] discusses basilisk again. No evidence that there are relaible sources for the concept. – sgeureka t•c 12:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You are, of course, free to take the article to WP:Deletion review if my closing rationale seems insufficient or mistaken to you. – sgeureka t•c 13:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm unwilling to take the matter to DRV, because I think I can resolve it with you through discussion.

First, I think news reports can be reliable sources, but I think the stronger argument is that the Encyclopedia of fantasy is a reliable source.

My position is that the delete !votes in that discussion came from people who had not performed sufficient research to back up their arguments (evidence: I was the only person who even noticed the existence of Examples of the motif of harmful sensation in fiction or the relevant category, which tells me the delete !votes hadn't even exhausted the possibilities of google, let alone taken any account of the paper source I mentioned.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No-one in the past 2.5 years could (or wanted to) provide evidence that there are reliable sources that discuss the concept, so I had and have to assume that the delete !voters are right that there are no reliable sources. If you are able to provide unquestionable evidence to the contrary (per WP:BURDEN), it's possible to restore the article, although it's probably still the best idea then to present those sources to DVR for more scrutiny (I am just a number-pushing scientist with no greater expertise in humanities). – sgeureka t•c 18:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit perplexed, Sgeurka, because I did provide a reliable source during the deletion discussion. Perhaps you somehow missed that in your closure?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There were only three sources present in the article when I closed the AfD, and I discussed them above. You also mentioned "Perception" in the Encyclopedia of fantasy, ISBN 1857233689, p.750. in the AfD, followed by I hope someone with access to a real reference work on literary themes and motifs will chime in with a better name. But this didn't seem to topple the rough consensus at the AfD over the next few days that the article content (still) constituted original research. From my view, even if your source was reliable (I have no way of checking, and you didn't really seem convinced of its reliability either), it wouldn't source the majority of the article and the majority of the article would remain OR. Since lack of notability was not the reason why this article was deleted, there shouldn't be a problem for you to start a new article on the topic with appropriate sources (I'd restore the article for the new page history then, or I can userfy it for you now). Another way (which I already mentioned) is to present the sources to DRV for scrutiny and ask for the article to be restored before you write/source the article. As I said, I have no greater knowledge of this topic and just determined rough consensus as I saw it in the AfD. – sgeureka t•c 19:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, how's the "rough consensus" determined? By a count of votes or an analysis of the strength of the argument? I want to point out that my reliable source wasn't refuted; in fact, I think everyone seems to have ignored it, including the closing admin.

I have no wish to re-do the extensive work involved in creating that article, and I haven't the heart to go through the horribly pointless bureaucracy of a DRV. If I can't convince you that there was an error in the closure, I'll just give up on it. But I hope that when you re-examine the closure dispassionately, you'll see there was an error.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is what it comes down to (even if it's repetative): The article used three sources that were so poor that they did not help with refuting anything of the AfD nomination. Most people said the article consisted of original research. You named a source that no-one could check for reliability, and the article remained unsourced and likely full of original research. Both the number of deletion !voters and the strength of argument dispassionately pointed at that the article's current state was so poor that it should be deleted ("rough consensus"). If you believe that my assessment was/is wrong, you either have to convince me (by writing a sourced article) or others (through DVR). Since you also just said that you have no interest in (re)writing the article properly (and no-one in the past 2.5 years did either), it was already the right decision to delete since a fresh start is better than keeping potentially unimprovable original research around. – sgeureka t•c 21:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I give up.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't lose hope! I agree with you, S Marshall. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi sgeureka, I was wondering if there is a copy of this deleted article in namespace or elsewhere because I want a reliable URL for it. Thanks. Xanthoxyl (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a copy at User:Xanthoxyl/Motif of harmful sensation. A list of all contributers (per the GFDL) is available at the talkpage. – sgeureka t•c 18:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

SG list

The list is suppose to be a short summary of the different characters, the Hank Landry section was long overdue + you can get that information when ever you want, it won't dissapear. The new setting to the list gives it more / better order. Why can't you make the HL page now and expand it later? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If we re aad the HL information and the other? would that make you happy? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to readd all the character descriptions right now to the missing ones, just fixed the box things first, second i can change a colours if you want. Third i'll start a discussion, but won't remove it,can you give me a list of things i should fix with the list? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll start a new section thread on the Stargate project. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll wait for the outcome --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Request for classification of TV show articles

I just noticed your message on my talk page (you left it at a very hectic time for me and I didn't even see it). I actually dislike Stargate (long story) but if your still looking for opinions, I can take a look at the articles for you. I'll probably have some time tomorrow to read through them. -- Scorpion0422 18:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Eko

Hi, thank you very much for passing the article, due to illness I was unable to respond. Luckily another editor helped out. Thanks, and good luck on your other projects.--Music26/11 14:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I don't know if this is how I'm supposed to do this, but I would like the Gregory House page to be semi-protected. Since you're an administrator, I thought you could maybe help out. These edits ([6], [7], [8]) are just examples of how the page is vandalized, and they seem to increase too. If contacting an administrator this way is wrong, I would like to know, but if you could help me out here, it would be great! Thanks.--Music26/11 17:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
My experience with dealing with vandalism is rather limited, but judging by the page history, most IP/newbie contributions are good faith contributions that may be annoying to revert but are harmless, and there isn't that much consistant IP/newbie activity, so I am reluctant to semi-protect the article shortterm or longterm. The guys at WP:Requests for page protection are very good with judging and dealing with protection-worthy articles though, so you can make your case there. But the article may not get much more than a week of semi-protection there at the moment - even the most severe longterm fiction vandalisms I reported there got no more than two month semiprotection. – sgeureka t•c 18:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, well thank you very much for clearing that up for me.--Music26/11 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Stargate

Sgeureka, personally, I'd think it would have been best to leave the older version while making a comparison. There are numerous things that need polishing and review with Trust's version, including a fair number of clunky sentences and uncited changes to information. That doesn't mean it all needs to go permanently - just that the good stuff should be merged in, rather than weeding the bad stuff out. Just my two cents. --Ckatzchatspy 09:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to his version to be better able to see (and show) the corrections that I am performing now. I likely haven't gotten to the article part yet that others find objectionable, but I'll see soon enough what route to take to cleanup. :-) Give me an hour or two. – sgeureka t•c 10:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for article you participated in the AFD of

Informing everyone who participated in the AFD for Ferris Beuller's Day Off in popular culture that a merge discussion is now underway concerning the same material. Please share your comments here Dream Focus 04:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay...

Okay, i'll stop recreating articles, i'll continue to work with those i created. Here the Walter Harriman (sandbox) can have its own article, so far i have written 9 lines about the characters Conceptual history. But okay, i will stop for now and see if i can expand some of those articles first. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, do you own a SG-1 season package or something? because i've been informed that much information about Kawalsky's creation and why they killed him of is on one of those SG-1 season packages. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thats okay with me Sgeureka. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm still working on the articles icreated,i've located sources. I still haven't checked if the information is important enough for inclusion. I--Trust Is All You Need (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction and your use of my monobook script

Hi Sgeureka,

I am pleased to see that you have used my monobook script in the past; I hope you've found it useful.

I have to let you know on your talk page that ArbCom has announced a temporary injunction against the "mass delinking of dates". You can still delink dates on an occasional basis; however, you may wish to be cautious and use the script only for its non-date functions until the issue is resolved by an RFC poll. You may wish to express your view on autoformatting and date linking in the RFC at: Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Carson Beckett

Hi, as you may know, Carson Beckett is being nominated for GA. The review is currently on hold, and there are two things that I would like your help at;

  1. The review says that someone should copyedit it. Since I realise that you have already copyedited the article twice, I was just wondering whether it needs another copyedit, since I'm no expert on the subject.
  2. Since the reception section is somewhat laxing of content, I'm planning on expanding it by poking around on the net. I also notice that several other SG characters has stuff from TV Zone. Unfortunately, I don't own any magazines. Do you? If not, do you know any other users or friends who do? And if you do own some, is there anything on Beckett? Thanks. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    1. I'll read over it again today and see if there are further opportunities for prose improvements.
    2. I checked my TV Zones when I did the first copyedit, but there was only one interview with McGillion talking about plot spoilers (at the time). There was nothing else about his character in TV Zone reviews etc. User:Andromeda seems to have an SGA Companion Guide per this edit, but he has been editing only very irregularly recently. – sgeureka t•c 09:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The weather was so nice here today that I didn't spend much time on wikipedia. I have started with the Beckett article and will continue tomorrow. If you want to do something in return *wink-wink*, feel free to skim Cameron Mitchell (Stargate) (currently GAN on hold) and correct any of my unintended rape of the English language (there shouldn't be much of that though). – sgeureka t•c 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it was nice here too. Thanks, and I'll see what I can do for the Mitchell page. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Anna Kournikova

Why did you add repetitive links to Anna Kournikova some of the links appear four or five times. Since you did it with popups, I assume you could undo it faster than I could manually. Please only link each term once.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add the links, I just disambiguated the existing links with popups in a drive-by fashion to fix a problem I saw. I am less concerned about overlinking, but misslinked articles are a pet peeve of mine. ;-) – sgeureka t•c 17:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

re: my sig

Hah. I messed up the spelling years ago and totally forgot to fix it :) Yeah, it's supposed to be a takeoff on Bach (and has the side effect of causing half the people onwiki to think that's my account name :P) Sharp eyes! --Der Wohltemperirte Fuchs (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Messing with you... that's the old german spelling :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars

Hello You previously voted on a deletion debation for this article some time ago. The result of that AFD was no consensus, and the article had now been re-nominated for deletion. Just drawing your attention to this fact, should you consider to join in the debate again. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 16:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD outcome statistics

Hi. I'm working on an essay Wikipedia:AfD and mergers, which would benefit from AfD stats, particularly the overall frequency of merge or redirect closings. I saw that you provided data at the TTN amendment RFAR in December 2008, including a nice pie chart. Would you be willing and available to help, or could you recommend other knowledgeable editors? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I'd like to help, I don't know how much time I can invest in wikipedia in the next few weeks/months, and I'd rather work on finishing what I started, or promised to finish. However, any regular commentator at WT:FICT is probably as suited as I would be.
Two thoughts for your essay: (1) Nearly all articles on fictional elements have a natural parent topic, which I think is a unique circumstance in wikipedia's net structure. Nonnotable fiction articles could always be mentioned in a parent article, i.e. merging or redirecting is almost always theoretically possible, i.e. going to AfD is technically always invalid for any fiction article because there are other options. On the other hand, arduous fan editors will defend their favorite non-notable articles from any merger/redirect attempts for obvious reasons. The wiki-law and the mob therefore often join to create a dead lock that prevents the compromise that everyone is hoping for. (2) A third modification besides constraint or expansion of AfD is a departure from "anything that can get cleaned up is kept at AfD" in favor of "anything that still violates core policies (WP:NOT, WP:RS) at the end of AfD independent of potential gets deleted" (that's de.wiki's approach). But I don't see this shift happening anytime soon at en.wiki. – sgeureka t•c 20:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'll try to incorporate your comments. (1) fills a large hole that I've been trying to avoid, to the detriment of the essay. I don't know anything about de.wiki, so (2) will go to the talk page first. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Spike

Any ideas on how this edit can be improved? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd remove it and leave the explanation to wiktionary for two reasons. The/A proper entry would look like
  • Spiking a gun, using a nail to render a muzzle-loading gun inoperable by driving the nail into the touch hole
but the new article would fail WP:NOT#DICT, i.e. shouldn't exist. Also, the dab entry would be more suited for the See also section, not the dab page itself. – sgeureka t•c 07:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

League of Nobility

That article about The League of Noble Peers needs to be deleted. Did a search and came up with only this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/sep/25/features.features11

What are the criteria for articles? The Wurdalak (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had just removed speedy tags from several Pirate Bay related articles that one IP had added although the articles did not appear as spam (unlike what the speedy deletion tag claimed), had been on wikipedia for over 9 months and were sufficiently sourced to pass at least a very basic threshold of notability. Your link to The Guardian establishes even more basic notability, so there is no reason to speedy-delete the article from my end. If you believe my perception is wrong or the TLoNP article is inappropriate for wikipedia for other reasons, you can nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD, where the community will decide its fate. – sgeureka t•c 00:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I just found it a silly extra thing about the film Steal this Film. I don't know anything about these Noble Peers but I have a hunch they are the pirate bay guys right? It might be a good idea to have it noted in the article about the pirate bay people if there is one? How do I tell the community I want to delete this and why? The Wurdalak (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anything about these guys either, but you (or anyone) shouldn't make any claims in the articles without a reliable source. WP:AFD ("Articles for deletion") is the place to discuss the proposed deletion of articles. You will find all the relevant info plus alternatives to deletion there. – sgeureka t•c 01:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I did it. Thanks. The name pops up enough in Steal This Film's article. The Wurdalak (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

White Dog

Thank you for copy editing the article! If you have any thoughts on things to address before its taken to FA, please let me know. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What I didn't attempt to fix in my "driveby" copyedit was the overlong introduction sentence, that the article uses "it" instead of "the film" too often (could be a matter of taste" though), and that the reception section has too many quotes without some summary like "Several reviewers were concerned that the film was too controversial.[1][2][3]". Looks FAC-worthy in all other regards for me though. – sgeureka t•c 08:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Stargate (film)

Sorry for that sentence, i really screwed that one up. They used the same tech. as they used on the Stargate (device) to the morphing helmets used by Ra and the Horus Guards
See her for more information about the production of the Stargate film, Source - http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/wow-how-did-they-do-that-1568272.html --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Quick and the Dead (1995 film) GA review

Thanks for reviewing, I think this article is ready after addressing your concerns. Good day. Wildroot (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Waterloo Road characters

Hello. I'm not sure what the current procedure is for these. Would you like to stick these on your to do list (or refer them somewhere)? None of them have real world context, and are all in universe. The JPStalk to me 10:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of the show (British series hardly ever air in my country) and most articles are of very low quality, so I am unable to determine quickly how much weight should be given its fictional elements. I am currently unable to spend too much time on wikipedia, and the only thing I can give you is general advise. Lists of characters are usually the way to go, and common practise is to describe recurring characters in one or two paragraphs in lists. Simple redirection probably won't work here.
AfDs will likely end in a clear keep or no consensus result if several character articles can be improved to B-class or above (which commonly means at least three paragraphs worth of non-trivial real-world information for production and reception). In such a case, or if you feel that a merger would be largely non-controversial, you should open a merge proposal to (hopefully) gain consensus as a record in case someone later undoes the mergers (without the addition of real-world information) without gaining consensus again. If you are unable to find evidence that most character articles can be improved beyond start class, and if there's a higher risk that fanboys/-girls will boycott any merger attempts, you should take one arbitrary character article to AfD where it will likely get enough attention from uninvolved editors to get a merge, redirect or delete result (I see you have already done that). You will then be able to merge the other ones without much hazzle, citing the AfD as a precedent. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

SG-1 sources

While I'm not suggesting you drop US$200 on it, this has some preview pages that may prove valuable for RS-mining. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

$200 is definately too much for such a cheap person as me. :-) But the book seems to be filled mostly with personal/subjective anecdotes, which makes it unusable for encyclopedic purposes focusing on non-trivial facts. But thanks for the link. – sgeureka t•c 22:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Inherit the Wind

Hello Sgeureka, I reverted your removal of the link to the Inherit the Wind disambiguation page. As there are multiple film versions of the play, we need to have a way to link to all of the versions. If you have a better suggestion than the current link, I am open to it. Otherwise, I believe we need to keep the link on all of the related articles. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:HATNOTE#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous takes care of the case, i.e. there is no need for the hatnotes. If Inherit the Wind (film) redirected to one of the films as the primary meaning, then that article would have a legitimate reason for a hatnote, but Inherit the Wind (film) doesn't exist. – sgeureka t•c 22:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point. Here is my goal - I would like this disamb. page Inherit the Wind to link to every film made of the play. What do you suggest? A "See Also" section? -Classicfilms (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

SG-1

Hey Sgeureka, here is a source showing the decline of the Stargate SG-1 viewership rating from 2.55 to 1.95 million in its last season. I have not added it because you have better writing skills than me. The source comes from Daily Variety. Goodluck with the GA! --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5143/is_200608/ai_n18584249/

Thanks. I already use the full article (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117948764.html?categoryid=1417&cs=1) in Stargate SG-1, but comparing viewership ratings from different times of the year is always like mixing apples and oranges, so that's why I didn't include it. – sgeureka t•c 21:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
That's OK(ay) with me, --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

More German

Would you mind my calling on your Germanic translation services again? At the end of this article it mentions something about the episode "33", but Google Translate absolutely butchers the meaning, and I can't make heads or tails of it. Can you tell me what's being said? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're still waiting for a reply, it says: Olmos thanked his audience and felt that everyone would be captivated by BSG, if it was only possible to get them watch the miniseries and the first episode "33". – sgeureka t•c 08:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Welcome back! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythology of Carnivale

I removed a brief sentence from the article with an explanation in the talk page. Someone had used the quote from 2.12 when Samson goes "What the hell is it with you people? [...] Management, you, Jesus, John the Baptist, the whole bunch of you!" to reference that Jesus and John were both Avatars. (Later on, there's some cited quotes from Knauf that indicate Jesus was an Avatar, which is completely different). That was OR, and in the context of the conversation, Samson was just making reference to people dying when they didn't have to. Since you seem to be one of the main editors on the article, I was wondering if you could keep an eye out for more stuff like that. I'm not as caught up with the mythology beyond the show as I'd like to be, so I wouldn't be the best judge on everything.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

An IP had added the info two years ago, and I added the quote as potential back-up after I had rewatched the show. Technically speaking, the whole topic struggles with OR-iness by modern wikipedia standards: Neither the characters nor the reviewers knew what was going on, and Knauf was vague in his explanations. The question now is where to draw the line for SYNTHesizing, and your feelings on this matter are as good as mine. – sgeureka t•c 11:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Carnivale trailer

Slightly o/t, but someone on IMDB saw this video that you uploaded here and wanted to know if there was a higher quality version available. Since you seem to be the uploader, I was just wondering if you had one. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I originally got the trailers from http://www.themidway.org/videos.html. It seems the *.zips are still on the server - those should be of slightly higher quality than the youtube vids, but they aren't highdef either. – sgeureka t•c 07:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
—Kww(talk) 18:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Boletus edulis

Hello sgeurkea, I notice you're not around as much, but if you see this, I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany regarding Boletus edulis - am trying to buff the article and felt as it is primarily a food item, this should be larger in the article. All help muchly appreciated. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply - I was on vacation. It's unfortunate for the project (and you), but I do not have much freetime any more since I finished university. I also moved to another town and still don't know where the libraries are. I hope someone else is able to help. – sgeureka t•c 08:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't sweat it. take care, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Milky Way Gate Address

Template:Milky Way Gate Address has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Fata Morgana (Sanctuary)

Hello, I wonder if maybe you could spend a little time copy-editing "Fata Morgana (Sanctuary)", since it is up for GA, and one of the comments is a copy-edit from another party. Sorry to disturb your [semi] retirement, but any help (copy-editing or point me out to someone who can help now and the future) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to have it done by Sunday night UTC. If not, then by Wednesday night. – sgeureka t•c 16:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I see the article already got promoted before I found the time to finish my copyedit. Nevertheless, I'll go over it again when I have the time (it's just a really busy time for me at the moment). – sgeureka t•c 07:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly?

Is Adria not notable enough to have her own article? 84.194.228.192 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems there is not enough real-world information about the character. I already added every bit of real-world information I could find in [my] magazines and on the DVDs, but it's not enough to support a separate article. – sgeureka t•c 07:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Alright, but isn't her role in the show prominent enough to warrant a fair-use illustration? 84.194.228.192 (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hardly. The character looks almost exactly like the actress, and wikimedia already has several free images for her.

List of fictional schools

Could you please userify List of fictional schools. I think I can fix it up. Of course I can do it myself, but I prefer to ask the deleting admin rather than use my own mop on stuff I'm interested in. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I've moved it to User:DGG/List of fictional schools. – sgeureka t•c 14:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Futurama episode "Lrrreconcilable Ndndifferences"

I was told I need to ask you for permission to make Lrrreconcilable Ndndifferences again. I've got 2 sources to give it this time so what do you think?NoD'ohnuts (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

What/where are the sources so I can judge them? – sgeureka t•c 07:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This: http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/futurama/?ipp=40 and this: http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/07/24/comic-con-animation-highlights-family-guy-cleveland-show/ NoD'ohnuts (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Sorry for the late reply. http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/futurama/?ipp=40 is just a TV listing with a one-sentence description. http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/07/24/comic-con-animation-highlights-family-guy-cleveland-show/ doesn't even mention the episode. Neither one establishes WP:NOTABILITY of the episode, and the article should not be recreated at this point. – sgeureka t•c 10:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll chime in at this point to NoD'ohnuts - about half the material I write here needs sources not readily available by internet (library or subscription only material is needed). I would suspect that youll need to lookup books or journal articles which have commentary about Futurama. Magazines which cover the area often don't have their material online. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The episode hasn't even aired yet, so it's extremely unlikely that there are books and magazines about it. Anything else is CRYSTAL-ballery, which was also the consensus of the AfD. – sgeureka t•c 07:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess I mean after it's aired of course :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

applying WP:GNG when more specific notability guidelines exist

For what it is worth, I think admins should not be closing AfDs UNLESS applicable Wiki policies have been identified and, if necessary, discussed. Better knowledge of these policies than the typical editor should be a condition for having powers to close deletion debates, I would think. It's a Black President, Huey Freeman has received more than 7000 hits in August alone according to the stats and it is not even two-thirds of the way through the month yet, which would not be decisive were it not for the fact that the notability guidelines are unequivocally satisfied. Wikipedia:Notability_(serial_works) says that "An episode of a television series is likely to be notable if it has achieved one of the following conditions" and one of the conditions mentioned is "The episode has been critically reviewed from a reliable secondary source." That condition has been unequivocally satisfied in my view, and if there remains any dispute about that, there ought to have been discussion on that specific point. All this to say that an AfD should not just be a poll, the encyclopedia's purposes would be better served if people who could be expected to know policy would guide deletion debates back to the relevant policy. If admins are not interested in speaking up in these debates, they could at least allow more time before closing so more users familiar with policy can contribute. I fail to see the need to rush with respect to articles that already have dozens of edits in their history.Bdell555 (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I now see that the specific policy I cited is described as "failed". I would still suggest that articles to be deleted on general grounds should be open for deletion review longer since there will be more editor discretion involved in the absence of specific, unambiguous guidelines.Bdell555 (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
An admin's job is to weigh the opinions in an AfD based on the strength of the arguments, and I explained how I weighed them in the closing rationale. The AfD in question was already relisted once at that time and had input from 10 different people. If you feel that the AfD was closed in error, please use the Wikipedia:Deletion review process. – sgeureka t•c 07:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hermann Fegelein (parody)

I give up....please pull the plug.KakashiBallZ (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)KakashiBallZ

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed a file deletion tag from Wikipedia. When removing deletion tags, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfair Deletion

I understand your reasons for deleting the page I created, Who (Dr. Seuss.) However, it was none yet officially decided in the discussion of the deletion whether or not said page would be erased from existence. In addition, you took no part in the discussion. I find this to be slightly unfair. Please avoid doing so in the future. I thank you for your understanding.Skydog892 (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)skydog892

The people who close such discussions (admins) are not allowed to participate in the deletion discussions beforehand. The consensus in the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who (Dr. Seuss)) was divided between deleting the page and turning it into a disambiguation page, but neither of those cases requires the page history. And as I stated, Who already mentions the cases, so Who (Dr. Seuss) would have ended up as a redirect from incomplete disambiguation anyway and wouldn't have been kept. If you still consider the deletion unfair, please use Wikipedia:Deletion review. – sgeureka t•c 07:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The page could have been edited to Wikipedia's standards and you know it. I still do not find it entirely fair that one person would decide to delete a page without an equal decision being made on the part of those who participate in the discussion. As both of us have previously mentioned, the vote was split and a mutual consensus had not been reached. You decided the ultimate fate of the article I created without anyone else agreeing. No one person should have the ability to delete a page only on their personal opinion. And I do not personally believe that it matters whether or not it was already mentioned in a disambiguation page. Most disambiguation pages mention several uses of the word and then contain a link to a page on that specific use of the word, with said page containing additional information on that particular use. Also, I did not use original research. I looked into other pages to ensure that my information was reliable. I am sure there is also a significant amount of research that has been done on this subject, due to the high familiarity most individuals have of this particular fictional creature. Thus, it would have been profoundly easy for one to edit this page. As I mentioned before in the discussion that you so willingly decided the verdict on, I created this page so that others might be free to edit it. For I have little interest in constantly editing pages, because, unlike some individuals, I have a life outside of Wikipedia and do not invest a great deal of my time in this site. I do not patrol this site continuously, searching for little insignificant articles that, instead of taking my sweet time to edit, I delete without a mutual decision, probably simply to make the creator's life pathetic a miserable. I don't do that. So, back to my point: There is no need to delete articles that can be easily edited. Please keep all this in mind. Skydog892 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)skydog892.

Nikita

As an editor of dab Nikita, your input is invited at the merge discussion there. --Lexein (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Mythology of Carnivàle

Just FYI, I responded to your reversion at Talk:Mythology of Carnivàle. Cheers, Vectro (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for help, if you have the time

Hi Sguereka, I appreciated your taking the time to review the Q&A (U.S. talk show) article I put together recently; you might've seen on the WP:TV discussion page that I've now done the same thing for the program it replaced, Booknotes. I've prepared a substantial expansion (in my user space here) and since I haven't received a response on the TV request, I've also posted a request on the Booknotes discussion page itself. If you can help, that would be great; if you're too busy, I'll understand. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to catch up on missing man-hours, but I'll try to give it a look soon. – sgeureka t•c 05:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I would appreciate it. No rush, just when you have the time. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sgeureka/Archive05&oldid=1088863647"