User talk:Zeppocity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A welcome from Sango123[edit]

Hello, Zeppocity, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango123 16:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Thanks for the thanks! :) I'm glad you liked the welcome; if you need anything else, don't hesitate to leave me a message. Regards, Sango123 16:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
If you plan a major change in the content or structure of an article, post a note on the talk page to alert other editors to it, especially if your edits might be controversial. Wait for responses to your comment before proceeding, but if none appear, go ahead with your change. Sango123 21:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Buffy[edit]

Hi Zeppocity -- I broke out the discussion of homosexuality in Buffy to a separate page (the main article is already over the 32k limit): it's now in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Social Issues. I suggest it would be a good place for you (and others) to get into greater detail about gender roles, etc. on the show. Sdedeo 18:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

-

Hi Zeppo -- I did some slimming on your Buffy gender roles entry (as well as on the homosexuality section and the class/race section I worked on.) Please don't take offense! Check the talk page for some suggestions of what we need more of. Sdedeo 16:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sarah Michelle Gellar[edit]

She is included in the list , because actually she is Jewish-American, however not all in the list are included in the category. Because either they are not jewish or do not want to be . As it is in case of Sarah Michelle Gellar. (please respond here) --ThomasK 18:03, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay then, so it essentially comes down to self-identification and religious practice? If that's it, I get the point (it's not like the woman makes much reference to her parents background and so on, so it makes sense). Thank you (unless I missed the point...?, hah)Zeppocity 18:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

On Loveless[edit]

Instead of a string of edits and reversals, I'll try and make my points here as to my insistence on keeping the references to critical response in the Loveless article:
a)"receiving rave reviews by most of the British music press at the time it came out" seems significant to me in that this album in particular was, well, object of rave reviews. The point being not that it's generally considered good, but that compared to many other albums of the time, and many albums in general, it obtained a great ammount of positive attention, to the point of pure hype, and is still regularly touted as one of the greatest musical references of modern music, as if it were some sort of holy cow. Even now, albums get compared to (or when reviewed, are passingly associated with, even if jokingly) Loveless as soon as they veer off into noisy-pop territory. It's mentioned in the article already, yes, but in passing, and only to make the point that it didn't sell quite as well as expected, and using the first piece of info (acclaim) as a conduct for the second (low sales) doesn't seem precise to me, rather, they should be presented seperately and both with some attention. As my edit, I think, would leave it.
b)"and still often resurfacing on reviewer's lists of best albums to date.", meaning that it is still kept as an important musical reference by a number of people. Though said rankings list does show the point, it doesn't make it as explicitly, especially being at the very end of the article.
I'd like to get your reasoning as to the invalidity of these better explained here, hopefully, and maybe you can suggest a better way of phrasing this, or give me a convincing enough reason not to phrase it at all, which honestly, I haven't seen so far. Otherwise, since it's a tad ridiculous that two editors in particular are pulling this back and forth, we could take it to the article's talk page and maybe reach for a consensus. If you don't respond, I'll assume putting it back as it was before your reversal is okay. Cheers, Zeppocity 04:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with your points, as they are valid. My only problem is the placement of your points. The first paragraph, as I see it, is to be as succinct as possible, with the rest of the article to articulate the subject. Since there's already a paragraph on how Loveless was received by critics, mentioning your points there would be best, I think. Also, your point that you mentioned here about Loveless's hype might also be a topic worth mentioning, though carefully of course. I'll copy this to your Talk page because I'm not sure if you're going to check back here or at your own page. I'll also put it on the Loveless article's Talk page because it's relevant.ShaneCavanaugh 05:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

About Southland Tales[edit]

Sorry about that. Feel free to insert the comment back into the article, as long as you provide external links to the forums you inserted straight after the sentence. I'm just wary about statements including weasel words such as "some fans" when there is no source backed up. For example, it used to say on Mad World (song) that "Gary Jules is considered to be a One-hit wonder, with this song, and it's doubtful that he will ever have another hit."

On Blanking Pages[edit]

I noticed you blanked Going Through the Motions as being an all-lyrics page. While the page is almost certainly inappropriate for WP (due to copyright issues, blanking a page is rarely proper procedure. I'm flagging and listing it as a copyvio; you can check the page to see the mechanics of doing that if you wish. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 16:34:48, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

OMwF[edit]

(There is no objective criterion for adding quotes.)
Yes, there is. Quotes ought to be ilustrative of the topic in question. "What else would I pump you for" is neither relevant to the episode, nor particularly specific to Buffy. The two you've added, however, are much more appropriate: a small joke refering to the state of things, and a (rare, if not the only, in the show...?) instance of fourth-wall-breaking that refers to the series' schedule.
So, as I see it at least: putting up random jokes and fan favourites = t3h suck; putting up quotes that either reveal something of significance about the characters, story archs, or are simply distinguishable for one trait or other = t3h gr34t.
Am I very wrong? Cheers, Zeppocity 19:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It's still subjective — you yourself say "as I see it". But I happen to agree with your criteria for Wikipedia use. (That's why I didn't restore the "pump you" quote.) Perhaps we can encourage fans to add other quotes to Wikiquote, where fan favorites are welcomed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Marvel Universe[edit]

Sorry about bothering you, but I'd like to know why the Marvel Universe Characters category has been erased and I can't find the discussion page as to the matter... could you please clear the matter up for me? Cheers, Zeppocity 09:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Didn't see this until now as it was originally on my user page where it doesn't belong. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 25. RedWolf 01:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Removing empty sections on Buffy pages[edit]

You should not do that. All episodes (or most of them) have the same structure waiting to be filled in, so they have a similar look and feel. Removing them, even if they are empty, is self-defeating in this project. Abaraibar 08:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize. I know you are in the project and you mean well. It's just that I put the structure in place in many eps and it pains me to see it removed. However, you may be right. Let's just remove it from some eps and see what happens ;) Abaraibar 09:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too! :) Abaraibar 09:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidate review: Buffy article[edit]

Hi

Just letting WikiProject Buffyverse members know that the article 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' has recently been nominated as a candidate to become a featured article. Should it become a featured article, it will be possible for the article to appear on the Wikipedia main page on March 10th 2007, the 10th anniversary of Buffy (the premiere, "Welcome to the Hellmouth" aired March 10th 1997).

Any feedback you can offer to improve the article and/or to either object or support the nomination would be wonderful:

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer

-- Paxomen 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Popular-TVseries-WB-cast.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Popular-TVseries-WB-cast.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) 12:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)