User talk:Cws125

Welcome!

Hello Cws125, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- KHM03 14:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost episode articles

Hello! Episode synopses already exist for this television programme, under Episodes_of_Lost_(season_1) and Episodes_of_Lost_(season_2). Is there a requirement for seperating the synopses in to individual articles and replicating the information in the aforementioned pages? If this part of an ongoing program then I apologise, but I am curious as to why the information is replicated. Regards, (aeropagitica) 13:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, currently there are two list of Lost episodes: List of Lost episodes (like most other TV shows) and Episodes of Lost (season 1), Episodes of Lost (season 2). I think the first style is more accepted, and I'm planning on having List of Lost episodes link to episode articles (like most other TV shows). Hopefully at one point there will be a consensus that having two lists is redundant and one of them has to go. Cws125 13:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes: if you have the agreement of the current lost editors then guidelines are to create individual episode articles from the season synopses. List of Lost episodes serves as an index to either though so i'm removing the merge tags from what youve said your intention isnt a merge anyway. Discordance 08:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually ive left the tags alone for now. Discordance 08:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have setup redirects on all of the articles you created for individual episodes. You can see the consensus reached about episode guide changes here, and if you would like to help you can signup here. Thanks. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost episodes category

Remember to use Category:Lost episodes in the Lost episodes! —Joseph | Talk 21:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Please fill in the 'Edit summary' field when you edit articles. Thanks. :) NowotnyPL 21:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Job!

Hey there, I love what you did to the separate LOST episodes article. Just like the Simpsons' episodes, each one has an article, LOST deserves that as well, and Your LOST list is better then the one already existed, no offence to who made it lol. I added the pictures of the episodes that where missing (everybody hates hugo, abandoned, what kate did).

Peace --Muhaidib 03:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict about Lost season vs. episode articles

Um, I think before you make rather lofty accusations (e.g., about Lost editors behaving "immaturely"), it'd be good to step back a bit and reflect that you and another editor came into a set of established pages, representing tons of hard work by a number of dedicated folks. And, before participating in any discussion whatsoever, you suddenly (and unannounced) made copious major changes that ran counter to what had already been expressed in a number of talk page debates. Prior to doing all that on the 12th of March, you had had precisely one Lost-related edit, ever. You shouldn't be too surprised at the degree of pushback you received. With all due respect, I would gently suggest that you consider if there are any plausible reasons why your actions might have been taken amiss. -- PKtm 05:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think I was a little harsh calling you guys names, but I actually deleted it a few minutes after I wrote it. I'm surprised you saw that, but anyway... I apologize.

Cws125 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Cws125, I've been seeing your passion regarding the "fair use" issues, and your ongoing outrage at Ed_g2s for, um, acting precipitously without discussion. Although in the "fair use" case I can see both sides evenly, so it's hard to be anything but neutral, I do think that you should consider the parallels (which admittedly aren't perfect) between your actions in creating episode articles without discussion and Ed's actions in removing images without discussion. I think you're right to complain that Ed did it without any warning, although in this case it was a policy issue and wouldn't have mattered in the end (discussion before or after the event, that is). But equally, that's my feeling about the sudden establishment of episode articles, which have in fact proliferated beyond my worst fears into the realm of trivia, fancruft, poor (or non-) editing, etc. Anyway, just food for thought... I don't think you'll change the WP policy, by the way, no matter what you write or think about Ed's actions, but that's just my view. -- PKtm 01:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding just the fair use debate, I believe Wikipedia policy is "Individual users thus enforce most policies and guidelines by editing pages, and discussing matters with each other. Some policies, such as Vandalism, are enforced by Administrators by blocking users." Ed did not have unilateral right to 1) decide what is fair use and what is not and 2) enforce his changes like he did, as this type of enforcement action is only granted in special cases like vandalism. And I'm not trying to change policy or arguing against policy, I'm arguing we are following those policies.

Regarding episode articles, I guess I can see how some parallels can be made. However, you usually don't need permission or some sort of discussion to create new articles (you usually are encouraged to Just Do It™) and I thought I was doing something harmless (organization) after seeing a notice requesting separate articles (you know those, Template:Splitlong).

I apologize for doing it without warning and looking at archived discussions. Maybe I can cite my inexperience in creating articles before. Perhaps maybe I shouldn't have defended what I did by arguing the pros of having separate articles since I was the person who created separate articles... in any case, I'm sorry. I know I'm not perfect.

However, this is not the first time Ed has done something like this and it is inexcusable. He made multiple reverts not because he thought he was applying policy but because he had failed at other lists when engaging in discussion, like List of Family Guy episodes, and used force instead on Lost's list, resulting in an edit war, the page being protected, and disruption, when he did not have to use force.

Cws125 03:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista TOC

Hi, saw that you had been removing the TOCLeft template for windows vista. But the template is used to save space, and most editors agree t it being there. The rationale for using it can be found on the talk page. Please have the issue discussed there before removing it. Thanks and regards, --so U m y a S ch 08:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for Development of Windows Vista. State your case for the changes you want to make to the table of contents on the talk page for that article. As with Windows Vista, the rationale revolves around saving space. Warrens 08:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: talk page

Fair use debate regarding television screencaps

Currently, there is a debate on Talk:List of Lost episodes regarding whether or not use of a 1/30th stillframe visual excerpt next to a list of audiovisual works (such as List of Lost episodes or List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes) is in accordance with WP:Fair use, and has even resulted in the protection of the page.

If you have any opinions regarding fair use on the List of Lost episodes page, please feel free to express them as I believe these two pages are sister projects.

Cws125 05:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there --Cat out 11:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TY for the headsup --therearenospoons 21:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images on List of Lost episodes

I know you are probably sick of the stalemated debate there, but you are much better at words than I am, and most of the people who are still trying to argue for fair use images.

In order to resolve the long standing debate over fair use of screenshots on List of Lost episodes, I am now trying to resolve the issue under the belief that the issue is an opinionated matter and not a matter of policy. Talk:List of Lost episodes#Fair use criteria number 8. I ask that people share their comments, but please try to keep the conversation in this section focused.

I believe if we can break through on the issue of point 8, the rest will fall into place. -- Ned Scott 07:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:UCDavis Arboretum.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:UCDavis Arboretum.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:UCDavis.gif)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:UCDavis.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --David Mestel^(Talk) 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Abrams

The J. J. Abrams article received heavy editing today by unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kendall-Jackson.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kendall-Jackson.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Zedla 22:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AnAsgard.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AnAsgard.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Thin boy 00 @177, i.e. 03:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The seal of Abraham Lincoln High School.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:The seal of Abraham Lincoln High School.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AnAsgard.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AnAsgard.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned (Lost)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Abandoned (Lost), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Abandoned (Lost). Oo7565 (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrift (Lost)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Adrift (Lost), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Adrift (Lost). Oo7565 (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Galatica

I mistakenly thought that "John" let Boomer take Ellen to the Galatica instead of the two escaping. Now, I am convince that Model 7 - "Daniel" is Starbuck. Ellen stated that Daniel was an artist (or at least artistic): Leoben helping with Starbuck's painting. John was said to had tampered with the Daniel model which could mean destroyed or "changed" its appearance. How did Boomer get a raptor? Which also explains Starbuck's "off the showroom floor" viper. Raul17 (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]