- 1 Congrats!
- 2 Uncategorized Task Force in the Signpost
- 3 The Prisoner of Benda theorem
- 4 Citation Editing
- 5 Godfellas
- 6 Conflict of Interest
- 7 Futurama - Blade Runner References
- 8 Talkback
- 9 season 5 issues
- 10 Please confirm your membership
- 11 Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Louis
- 12 Wiknic in St. Louis this weekend
- 13 Children's Museum backstage pass
- 14 Futurama broadcast order
- 15 MOTDs (This space for rent)
- 16 WikiWomen's Collaborative
- 17 Happy Birthday!
- 18 Motto of the Day Help Request April 2014
- 19 ArbCom elections are now open!
Uncategorized Task Force in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on the Categorized Patrol/Task Force for a Signpost article to be published next month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The Prisoner of Benda theorem
Hi Stardust. Since the episode is getting a lot of notice for its math in its reviews, do you thinkw e should add the theorem? The actual theorem (I assume the one devised by Keeler) is fully visible in the episode. What would your opinion be on transcribing it and adding it to the page? I'm also asking because you have an arguably strong background in mathematics from your aerospace degrees, and mine is but a paltry biology and biostatistics.Luminum (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- My gut instinct would be that we shouldn't try to transcribe the entire theorem. It's possible there's a way to write it up that would work but I imagine it will be a large block of text about a topic that isn't the main focus of the article. I think it is important to summarize the theorem in some form, or possibly include the screenshot if we have a good fair use rationale. Of course all of this is just my opinion, so none of it is set in stone or anything, you might just need to experiment a little to see what works, I'll try to help if I can but I'm still trying to get back into the groove of editing again and not online as much as I once was. Stardust8212 14:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I see. I read what you sent. You're right. Sorry about undoing your edits and thanks for not getting upset about it. I'm still getting used to Wikipedia. I can see why they have all of these rules but they are quite a lot to take in at once. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. Arawn 03:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arawn V (talk • contribs)
You said that my edit of Godfellas was not sufficiently documented. I cited both the Wikipedia page for Gift of a Useless Man and an external review of the story. What more exactly is required? That seems like an absurd amount of documentary requirement for something that is manifestly true if you just go look at the source materials. Crispincowan (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- You linked to the wikipedia page, which is not a reliable source according to wikipedia's own standards, see WP:RS for information on what is a reliable source. Also the "review" which you have put as a ref cannot be found and there is not enough detail there to determine whether it is from a reliable source. As I explained on the talk page you need to provide either a link to the review or enough bibliographic information for a reasonable person to be able to verify it. Read Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information on proper citations. Also we cannot accept cultural references based on the virtue of "It's obvious from watching it", it's just not the way Wikipedia works. Every fact in the article needs to be verified using a reliable source or else it is considered original research. Essentially this means that anything you put in a Wikipedia article cannot be your own original idea or something you figured out by watching the episode, someone else has to have said it first. Please also see my comments at Talk:Godfellas Stardust8212 13:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest
Thank you for your concern regarding the MBG page. We just want to assure you of a couple of things. First of all, we are new to Wikipedia and initially did not realize the implications of our edits. We also want to assure you that we are not on this page to self-promote or advertise shamelessly (or shamefully, for that matter). To allay your concerns, we must say that we are committed to the facts and will be as objective as possible in future edits.
Futurama - Blade Runner References
Hi, I have added some comments to the cultural references section of Lethal_Inspection concerning relations with the movie Blade Runner. It was removed in lack of references. I have linked youtube, now it's removed again. How else could I prove that the given damn sentence is a part of the movie? Probably you won't find the script in any official source. Moreover: I have described similarities in the plot. The wiki page of the Futurama episode and that of Blade Runner describes the plot of both things, I guess that counts as reliable source, and the similarity is obvious. What else reference do you need? Please enlighten me, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoltan.ludanyi (talk • contribs) 09:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, to include facts like these in an article it needs to be discussed in what Wikipedia considers a Reliable Source, see WP:RS, something like a newspaper or magazine article that talks about the similarities between the episode and the movie. Youtube is not considered a reliable source in most cases, neither is citing another wiki page, blog post, forum or anything of that nature. If you think you have found a source try asking on the talk page of the article and someone will probably be able to help you figure out if it meets Wikipedia's rules and how to use the right citation templates so nobody will question it. Stardust8212 21:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
season 5 issues
Not sure why you removed my edits on the season 5 futurama issue, but I think it has merit. The total lack of season 5 info is confusing and not sure why the season 5 info is replaced by the movie information. You could have informed me at least on why you removed my discussion comment.Gunnerclark (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I did not remove your edits, I moved them to the bottom of the page , where new discussion topics go, the same as I have done here. Stardust8212 20:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Please confirm your membership
|This is an important message from WikiProject Wikify.
You are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Wikify. As agreed upon by the project, all members will be required to confirm their membership by February 1, 2010. If you are still interested in assisting with the project, please add yourself to the list at this page—this will renew your membership of WikiProject Wikify.
Thank you for your support,WikiProject Wikify
Wiknic in St. Louis this weekend
- Thanks for the update but I will be in Kansas City for the Great Lenexa Barbecue Battle this weekend. Stardust8212 20:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Children's Museum backstage pass
|The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited!|
|The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is hosting its second Backstage Pass and its first Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, August 20. The museum is opening its doors to Wikipedians interested in learning about the museum's collection, taking them on a tour of the vast collection before spending the afternoon working with curators to improve articles relating to the Caplan Collection of folk toys and Creative Playthings objects. Please sign up on the event page if you can attend, and if you'd like to participate virtually you can sign up on the Edit-a-Thon page. ---LoriLee (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)|
Futurama broadcast order
MOTDs (This space for rent)
You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
|Hi Stardust8212! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.
As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:
We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved!
Motto of the Day Help Request April 2014
Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.
Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).
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) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)