User:Thespian/Archive2

Orange Whip

On 20 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Orange Whip, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bands on Orange Whip

I WP wouldn't normally link to a minor group just because it had the same name as something notable, but here you were trying to make some statement about cultural references. I guess that could be called "advertorial" even if you aren't intentionally spamming, because it gives undo significance to some group. The Studio seems notable, maybe even directly relevant; is it the same company related to the original improv? That might support an article. But as I look at the bands now, they seem pretty minor. The ideal situation would be some third-party article stating that "various bands are named after this line", which WP could then quote. Have you queried the editor who deleted it? Gimmetrow 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

James Nicoll

Hadn't noticed the double-edit; my bad. (Great minds think alike?) The reason to stick them in the lead was specifically because the article has had "notability" problems in the past, and inserting a clear indication of his impact seemed prudent. I can see them being more useful in the body, though, so I merged the edits and did a bit of cleanup. -- Metahacker 03:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

About PRODs

the following text was copied from User_talk:Darrenhusted for archival purposes While you were totally right on the fact the PCW pages needed to be removed, I wanted to draw your attention to this part of WP:PROD:

Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense); however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith.

You said, "Unless you improve the article do not remove the PROD," but really, anyone is allowed to remove the PROD, at any point, for any reason. I bring this up not because you're in the wrong here (you're completely not), but because there are some rules lawyers out there will come down on you about it (at which point, it will be all 'you can't follow rules! see! you didn't there!' in some unrelated argument). Anyone can remove the PROD, and even if they're totally clueless, it shouldn't be returned. Thanks for catching the walled garden there, though. --Thespian 21:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that, I re-applied the PRODs to try and buy me time finding all the PCW articles which took me nearly two days to round up. Next time I see a PROD removal I'll just go to AfD. Darrenhusted 22:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Deadman/ANI

We have both requested a block, I will merge yours to mine if you don't mind? Darrenhusted 18:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, looks better that way around anyway. Darrenhusted 18:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw what you did<!-- with the invisible thing -->. Just saw the block, too. Darrenhusted 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Things Whut Bug Me :)

Hello, Thespian! I like what you said in your "Things Whut Bug Me" section of your user page. I was wondering if I may copy it into my user page and and credit you since I agree with everything you say in it and I wouldn't be able to put it into better words, myself :) Thank you kindly --AutoGyro 16:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Though as it is a user page, and I do change it, you'll also want to check it every so often in case you start to disagree with future things ;-) --Thespian 16:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You can visit my user page to see how it turned out. I appreciate all the work you do on Wikipedia. Here's a big virtual cookie for you (cookie) :P ^_^ --AutoGyro 16:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Izzard

Hey, no problems. I see from the history that you've had to make several similar reverts. Annoying eh? By the way, your rant about "citation needed" tags on your userpage inspired me to go and add some citations! (I have been a little too quick to add the tags in the past without trying to find them myself.) --Belovedfreak 22:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

namespace error

You posted to Wikipedia talk:DESiegel/RFC Draft/Naconkantari instead of User talk:DESiegel/RFC Draft/Naconkantari -- the draft is in user space until it is ready to be posted. i have moved the talk page accordingly. DES ^(talk) 09:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Benoit/Signpost

Maybe we could work together on the story. I agree this is a big issue; in fact I had planned to write the story before you put it on the tip line. You seem to have sources for the story, but there may be a COI issue, which I can help you with (as well with writing the article itself). What do you think? Sr13 04:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll do some additional research (google gets tons of results) and see what I can add. I'm guessing we're working here? Sr13

I've started the sidebar here. Could you find the diffs to the "statements" made by Jimbo and Wikimedia? I can't seem to find them...I have one or two statements that may be related, but I'm not sure if they're the ones that you are refering to. Sr13 07:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The sidebar won't be added (I'm not sure what the point of a sidebar is in online media). I credited him because he did do work on the article in general, even if his contributions might not be within the article itself. Ral315 » 06:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Joelsiegel oceans13.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Joelsiegel oceans13.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kittyandthesilverbullet.jpg

Resolved

 – There were server issues at the time of the upload, and I went to bed. Fixed the next day!

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kittyandthesilverbullet.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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. ShakespeareFan00 09:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your references to me

My "agenda" is the improvement of Wikipedia. :-) Cheers, Robert K S 01:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging of the Kitty Norville books

I do not understand the rational behind this decision - not only does the given rational of 'protecting them from non-notability deletion until content can be put in' makes no sense, merging them into one page makes for an ungainly and lopsided page, with very little content in the center, and the userboxes for each individual book on the side. If there was discussion for this prior to you making the merger, please direct me to it - if there was no discussion, if you could please elaborate? Bengaley 14:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

the following text was copied from User_talk:Bengaley for archival purposes

It was brought up to me by another editor who saw I was adding something to the Carrie Vaughn page, that he had been considering speedy deleting the Kitty Norville page and the pages of all the books that had no content (because though they have some interest, they really are barely notable, compared to the number of things that get deleted around here each day that have much higher profiles). Because I'm fairly high-profile, he knew my name as an inclusionist, and asked me if I thought I could do something to save them.

The speedy deletion would have been a week ago; instead of seeing that I'd moved things, you'd have seen that they'd been deleted, and fan though I am of the series, I know enough about the deletion process here, they would *not* have survived an AfD. There was NO information on the pages; less than you could get by searching Google *without* actually following the links. There's been a pogrom on genre (both SF and romance) books of late, resulting in authors who have 30 books and several awards being deleted for being 'non-notable', and I wanted to avoid that for these interesting, quirky books, which I think are the freshest books in the 'reimagining the werewolves/vampires are here amongst us' urban fantasies in a long time.

It was, yes, informal between editors, and you can feel free to ask for an RfC on it if you think I acted incorrectly. The issue you're going to bring up at that point is that almost no one has ever worked on these articles, they were created and then just sat there for ages; indeed; I did this change 6 days ago and you're the only person to even notice it. The history of the pages is going to indicate to a lot of people (as it did in casual IRC talk) that its not really notable, and there's a good chance people will say the expanded desc of the third book will be deleted and it will all be merged into Carrie Vaughn. I was intending to work on filling out the first two books this weekend, but I was at a convention called Readercon in Burlington, MA, and the internet access in the hotel was down all weekend. --Thespian 09:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I fully understand your reasoning. It's just, no mention beyond 'saving' them was mentioned, and I couldn't find anything on any talk pages about it. No need for an RfC - what is done on Wikipedia can be easily undone, after all - once we get that content up there. Meanwhile, I got sidelined with WP Anthro, so I'm going to put these books on hold for now. Bengaley 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ral RFB

I feel uncomfortable with the amount of bytes I've added to Ral's RfB already, so I wanted to address this at your user talk. First, I really admire your decision to remain neutral, and really wish the other signpost reporters had done the same. Second, you're right that it's not Ral's fault, and that's sort of my point. Ral is, and I can't emphasize this enough, a really, really great wikipedian. An incredible asset to the project. Were he not also Signpost editor I would have supported him for bureaucrat even faster than I supported Deskana. If his RfB failed, but he resigned from the Signpost and ran again, I would support him in that situation as well. My concern is that Ral is putting himself and the community in an impossible position, not that he is a bad user, but that no user should serve in both those roles because of 1) the coi as expressed by myself, Cecropia, Xoloz and others and 2) the appearance of coi. --JayHenry 05:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the things is that is *is* a newsletter; unlike a number of the other writers for the thing, I do this professionally. It had never even occurred to me that people would think of the positions as being in conflict; people on the Board or working for the project in different capacities are no in conflict by holding administrative or bureaucrat bits, and editor of the newsletter isn't that important. The only issue I see that can cause conflict is if we writers for the Signpost started to throw our weight behind him constantly, he'd get the accusations of cabalship. The issue should be negligible; the positions really are not in conflict, if things are clarified as they would be in a professional environment. If either was a position of advocacy, it might be more of a problem, but both the editor and bureaucrat positions are defined by neutrality guidelines. --Thespian 05:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. It was only after a fair amount of thought that I opposed, and I did so with a heavy heart. I don't think the issue is black and white, it's just that, after careful reflection, I see a shade too much gray. Like a judge and a journalist, I see two types of neutrality that don't mix. But I can also tell that many editors, like yourself, have put considerable thought into the issue and simply arrived at a different conclusion -- I don't begrudge that at all. (For the record, I think it has been a conflict for board members to be in too many other roles. I would prefer checkusers not be 'crats. I would prefer stewards not be on Arbcom, etc. It's not just the Signpost.) But at any rate... I've spent all my WikiTime this past week at RfA. It seems that I've forgotten that there's an encyclopedia that needs written! If I've lost perspective (certainly possible!) it's probably because I've been too-meta lately. --JayHenry 06:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Audio verison of Signpost

Some examples are here : [1]

For reasons to do with influence on process, the audio version normally omits the Arbcom section, that features in the print version. ShakespeareFan00 12:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Book review

Great book review, however I have a question on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-16/Keen review - one sentence doesn't make sense... - Ta bu shi da yu 09:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I also want to thank you for that book review. Very well thought-out and, dare I say, entertaining! All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thespian, I read your review of Keen's book. Just wondering if he says anything about the issue of the ephemeralness of information on Web 2.0. By that I mean Web 2.0 makes it easy to post content, but also makes it just as easy to delete content (or not even save it in the first place, like most IM chats). Does Keen have any thoughts about preserving history in the face of this? Wl219 21:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrections

Changes are fine even after "publication", especially if actual errors are present, it is a wiki after all. I even occasionally add updated developments to stories if it involves news that isn't going to get covered again in the next issue. --Michael Snow 16:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Logo

I really liked that logo you made with the life buoy. Another idea - I think the TV show Thunderbirds were all about International Rescue, so might be some visual inspiration there. By the way, I tried clicking on the link you put on the WP:RESCUE talk page about some automated wikia thing, but could not seem to reach what you were mentioning. JeffStryker 12:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

there was a small typo; I forgot to put a | between the internal URL and the text I was linking, but it's fixed now. --Thespian 13:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. JeffStryker 14:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Side Order of Life

Hi! Thanks for your message. Wikipedia itself defines dramedy as "a style of television and movies in which there is an equal, or nearly equal balance of humor and serious content." I personally found the pilot of Side Order of Life to be far more dramatic than comedic, which is why I had changed the category in the infobox. Perhaps the balance between the two genres will become more equal as the series progresses, but I found very little of the first episode was humorous enough to consider it a dramedy. ConoscoTutto 13:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was enough humor in the second episode to warrant the "dramedy" label . . . I actually laughed out loud during the "sperm-off" sequence! ConoscoTutto 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Relaxacons and sercon

I hope I addressed your concerns. Maybe someday I'll get around to doing a "sercon" article. I hope Readercon was fun; I've wanted to go, but no money! (Wiscon, fortunately, is close by.) --Orange Mike 16:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In my arrogant opinion, Wiscon comes pretty close to the platonic ideal of the SF convention: genuinely serious, constructive discussion of SF as a genre combined with deeply fannish fun and silliness; panels so good you don't want them to end; talk that actually leads to something; a huckster room full of actual books; etc. I am deeply privileged to have it so close by. --Orange Mike 12:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

SF?

You wrote:

I work on the edge of the SF industry,

The SF disambiguation page hasn't clarified this for me. Science fiction? Special forces? Stellar frontier? San Francisco? Six Flags? Michael Hardy 02:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Re. fyi

Sounds great. Soft stories like that are fine if they serve a purpose - in this case, to inform readers about the Wikipedia Plays. Ral315 » 04:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Current template

That's fine with me. If there's activity that merits the template, the template should be used.
(On a remarkable number of articles, the tag has been used in a most haphazard manner.)
-- Yellowdesk 05:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bold change

It wasn't really bold, even; as you thought, I was just a bit tired and wasn't paying attention. Thanks for taking care of that. Ral315 » 00:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)