User talk:Josiah Rowe/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it.

If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on my main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

This archive page covers discussion between July and December of 2005.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, 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! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Compassion

Nice work on Compassion. I think between the two of us over the last several hours we've managed to add some quality info to round out her profile. Want to take a stab at fleshing out Sabbath next? --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 05:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Re: "you can't vote for your own move request"

  • Did I misunderstand the part that said, "Add Support or Oppose"? Was I supposed to put that text in, instead of adding Support or Oppose myself? If so, the page ought to be clearer.

Yeah, you're meant to add that text rather than vote yourself - by nominating to move, you've made your vote clear, and by adding a Support below, you're effectively voting a second time. - SoM 18:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar!

It's my first. I'm all tingly! :D —Josiah Rowe 00:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take two aspirin and call a doctor if you're still tingly in the morning. :-P --fvw* 00:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving archives

No, you didn't mess anything up. I was simply archiving in a way that would preserve the page history. I just read the instructions you pointed to and I find them rather odd, as that was certainly not the way I was taught to archive pages. Perhaps this is the new method because people were screwing things up by not moving the pages properly. Hmm.

Anyway, it's done now, and in a way that you can still click on history and see how the page developed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A new barnstar

In recognition of excellence in editing Lost (TV series)

Thanks for organizing the two proposal to move/rename the Lost article and your efforts in getting the links straightened out! LeFlyman 20:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks for all your WikiContributions! --FireFox

FireFox 18:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

"What did I do?" he says - well, you're a Wikipedian, and everyone deserves rewarding when they have done good work! FireFox 18:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Josiah Rowe?

Are you the Memory Alpha user, Josiah Rowe? — THOR =/\= 19:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, just a Josiah Rowe, didn't you hear I come in six-packs?
Yeah, c'est moi. I have this bad habit of being hugely present on different websites in succession, and then disappearing when my life gets too hectic. I'll spend a few months on Outpost Gallifrey's forums, then a few months at the TrekBBS, then I'll be at Memory Alpha for a while... recently I've been here. When my next show opens, I'll probably vanish and reappear somewhere else around January or so...
How're things at MA these days? —Josiah Rowe 04:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As for things going at MA, there's a lot of derision about Featured Article candidacy and so forth. But nothing phenominal. We're looking into possibly doing a Refit of the Week MA collaboration, along the lines of Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week.
Also, thanks for your continual efforts on the Serenity page; as a huge fan of the series and the movie, I laud your efforts. — THOR =/\= 04:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Tain't easy assumin' good faith on a fellow won't speak or give his right name, let me tell you. (Was tempted to start callin' him the Operative on the talk page, given the lack of name and all, but a) the Operative did operate out of good faith — that was his problem — and b) this guy's nowhere near as cool as him.) It's not very Christian of me, but I do find myself hopin' that this one will 'vert one more time tonight, so we can get him on WP:3RR. —Josiah Rowe 04:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity

Hi, Josiah. I'm actually just about to go to bed, so I can't look at it in depth. I'll try and get around to it in the morning. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the history and the edits and I don't see anything that leaps out at me as immediately blockable, although there certainly seems to be POV-pushing around. If the anon manages to violate WP:3RR in the process of his editing, give a shout out, but otherwise, perhaps an RFC or asking for a third opinion is the way to go for the moment. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By my count, he's done 3 reverts in the last 24 hour period. One more, and he'll be blockable. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see this until now. He seems to have stopped for the moment, though. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kuram na smekh

The literal meaning would be "For chickens to laugh at". If you have any other questions regarding Russian proverbs or translation problems in general, do not hesitate to ask me. Cheers! KNewman 16:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc for TheDoctor10

Thanks for the offer. I think the more appropriate one would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature. It's really not about him. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it goes further, then user conduct would be appropriate. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. We'll see what happens. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf

You're right of course. I can't believe I forgot Sam. Thanks for fixing it. Garion96 18:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Villains

Have you alphabetizing the villains after the last name? —previous unsigned comment by 213.114.215.199

Barnstar

Thank you. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look up!

You're welcome. I just discovered there is also WP:RM for requesting page moves. Good luck, Johntex\talk 20:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

No problem. I haven't been able to edit much recently, but I noticed the 'backlog' notice at Requested moves, and figured I'd jump in on a couple of the more obvious ones, at least, since I've been active there in the past. Still working on updating all the in-bound links, but hope to be done soon. Take it easy. Niteowlneils 04:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And we're done. Awesome. I kinda thot the list got a whole bunch shorter on one refresh than I expected. :) Niteowlneils 05:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Sea Devils

/*Anthony Ainley*/ Mwuhahaha! /*Ainley/*/ :).--Sean|Black 05:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to "Doctor in Distress".... *head explodes*--Sean|Black 05:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. You're right, and that's officially the saddest thing I've ever typed. *humming*... AAAGH!!--Sean|Black 05:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, the foul beast should be leaving soon... You know, it's sort of like the The King in Yellow in song form :).--Sean|Black 06:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The wonders of tabbed browsing, I guess.--Sean|Black 06:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brain tank

Interesting idea. Do keep me updated with developments, my account should be validated "as soon as possible" for OG.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, when the Doctor says "this is the year 5.5/Apple/26, 5 billion years in your future", it could be an approximation, explaining roughtly what the 5.5 date meant. But I'll keep it as it is for the moment, until you check out the source.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khaosworks pointed me to a WhoSpy image. What's that got to do with it?--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page Merge

Hello Josiah - thanks for your message. I'll be glad to help. Unfortunately, I've fallen behind on my real world chores so that I'm having to catch up on them this evening. Monday and Tuesday will be very busy for me, but I should be able to do it on Wednesday. It may not end up being that hard, but I've gotten the vague impression that page moves can be tricky - so I want to make sure I have time to do it correctly. I'm sorry that it will take me a little longer than I'd indicated to you. Johntex\talk 01:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TheDoctor10

Thanks for the heads-up on that; I don't really have anything to add beyond what you'd said. By the way, I noticed you said you weren't an admin: would you like to be? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you to ask. I think at the moment I'm content being a lowly editor, and trying to keep things on an even keel with my peers. I may change my mind later, but I don't feel like standing (running?) for adminship at the moment. Thanks, though!
As for TheDoctor10, do you think that there's anything more we can do? It looks like he's on a lower boil at the moment, despite his vague threat to "take it to the Foundation". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand wanting to stay a user; if you change your mind you have a willing nominator. As for TheDoctor10, yeah, it looks like he's calmed down a bit—or at least not reverting at the moment! I'm not terribly worried about the consequences of him taking it to either the Foundation or the criminal justice system. :-) I suppose if he persisted a user RfC would be in order, since it looks like this isn't a new issue; hopefully not, of course. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Cyborg: you will be engraciated! :)

Hi there! I'm glad to make your reacquaintance! Thank you for your indulgence and assistance regarding the prior issues with the Serenity. I'm hopeful that my ruminations have resulted in a higher quality, and accurate, product, as yours have. And I was able to further flesh out and correct the relevant 'systemic' definitions, but not painlessly. :)

As well, I'd like to thank you for your attempts at compromise regarding the 'great' cyborg debate. While I acknowledge that the definiton of the term is dubious and has dual meanings (e.g., bionic humans vis-à-vis hybrids like The Terminator) and do not disagree with some of what has been suggested, my huge beef has been with certain users advancing a viewpoint without clearly citing their sources (and I mean the notion that T is not a cyborg, as the antagonist implies, not definitions merely saying he's something else), which still hasn't occurred. Make sense?

With all of this in mind, I've also proposed an alternate similar note for inclusion in the cyborg article. I'd appreciate it if you can weigh in on it, edit it, comment, and help diffuse what has been a very lengthy discussion over what may be not what. Please also let me know if you've any questions. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for your added input; I really appreciate it! I've responded to it (explaining my reasoning behind a brief note, but don't mind the previous longer one too) and advocate for your subsequent note. If you will, please weigh in once more to 'finalise' this ... I hope this is resolved soon. :) Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 16:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! Thank you so much for weighing in with the 'cyborg' article. I've made what I believe are consensus changes to the note/article, and hope this matter to be settled! (Finally ...)
I also see that you were earlier awarded a barnstar for diligence ... I hope my diligence is as equally valid regarding this. he he Anyhow, let me know if you've any questions or need future assistance. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 21:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He he; I ask for not-too-many things in life – oxygen (sometimes more than the usual 21%), food, 'mutualism', and perhaps a cranial socket now and then – but I don't think I asked for that. :) As a segue: I actually feel that the 'systemic' debate was far more fruitful and productive, et al. In any event, I thank you ... immensely! I hope I can be as helpful to you in the future as v.v.  :) E Pluribus Anthony 05:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! How are you? Well, I hope. Thanks for moving the extra ... dialogue in the Talk:Cyborg page. While I'm reticent to (re)opening this apparently closed issue/RfC, AlainV doesn't seem to agree or respect the decision arrived at. I also do not believe that his ranting (for lack of a better word) is sufficient cause to reopen it.

Frankly, I'm unsure what to do, if anything, if he persists. Should I remain silent, escalate the matter or – better yet – prevail upon you et al. for some sort of mediation? Am I going overboard? I think he is clearly violating WP:POINT (and has been since he instigated his to me WP:POV assertion) and I may be compelled to seek some sort of sanction against him on the Wp admin board for his disruptions. I truly do not want to belabour this issue anymore than necessary (enough time has been frankly wasted) but may have to. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 17:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Speaking of cyborgs and as highlighted in Wired, care to vote on this issue? :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; thanks for weighing in again. Not at all harsh: balanced! :) I disagree with you that AV hasn't been disruptive, but concur with your even-handedness otherwise. I have responded there at some length (atypical? :)), have indicated my preference ("let it go"), and will withdraw from responding to AV hereafter. If I'm required to comment, please keep me apprised.
As for Serenity et al., how dare they! :) Any prior mentions that were agreed upon, which is an example of a consensus that should endure, should be restored. Let me know if you wish to probe further or intervene. May the force be with you, and thanks again for your input! :) E Pluribus Anthony 19:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I've posted a brief summary (addressing inaccuracies) and response to AV's desire for mediation. To use a colloquialism (IMHO): same sh*t, same smell. I'm not being a stallthwart, but until he produces or collaborates or a Wp consensus supports the course of action he condones, I will not respond to him further nor participate. Let me know if you've any questions.

Oh; care to weigh in on this issue? In any event, thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 07:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; thanks for your note ... no problem! You've done more than enough throughout, I think I have too. And I have also had enough of this: I will disengage from AV. He may have a challenge if he potentially argues with himself. I am not required to enter into mediation (and I've stated why I won't, under the circumstances); if he decides to escalate and opt for arbitration instead, I feel that he may be disappointed by the result: he has to demonstrate that other options have been exhausted. In any event, I will only participate if required to and will cross that bridge when/if we get to it.
And if you get a moment before year's end, take a moment to vote on this issue. If you can't, no problem! Again, thanks for your balance and input!E Pluribus Anthony 17:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! Thanks for your note. I can see both sides, too. I acknowledge and realise AV has this point of view (which I partially share; any dictionary will reveal what he contends), but he is pushing his POV (without WP:NPOV) at the exclusion of other verifiable citations and against a consensus he was all too happy to support when it served his needs. And he's doing it repeatedly, without collaborating, and ... rather erroneously. That is irksome. If he escalates, I'll deal with it. However, I'm not at all worried and won't bother with it anymore unless I need to.
And speaking of cyborgs: take your time with your vote ... no pressure! I'm mediating it (though commenting when it's germane, on both sides): I seem to put myself in the middle of all the juicy discussions! :) Personally, if there wasn't a length limitation for articles and a particular user who was (until my input) apparently co-opting the single article, I might have supported just one article. However, I'm partial to two, and have proposed an outline for this that seems to have high support. Time will tell. Anyhow, I'm easy. :) Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 17:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I hope you're well and are having a good holiday, as I am. It seems that, for the time being!?, the debate regarding the cyborg article is lapsed. (Whew!)

Similarly, this is a friendly reminder to take a moment to vote on Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker issue. Your vote here or there can make a difference. :) Thanks again, and happy holidays! E Pluribus Anthony 20:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TY, and happy new year! E Pluribus Anthony 22:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Wars and such

Rather than get into a piffling edit war on The Doctor Dances, I'll ask you: Does "The Shooting Scripts" say what On-Com stands for?--Sean|Black 07:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check my copy when I get home, but I don't recall it does. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll let it go; it's plausible speculaton, at the very least.--Sean|Black 07:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, letting it go is a good thing. Not that I care all that much anyway.--Sean|Black 01:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Audios

Check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Style guide. Can you chime in some percieved problems with the audio articles? Thanks.--Sean|Black 04:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Turner's "Louis" in "The Girl in the Fireplace"

  • I was basing my edit on the actual episode page, which states that it is a different Louis. Outpost Gallifrey also indicates the same. QuentinGeorge 20:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains

Thanks for chiming in on the list of villains talk page. Thankfully, that user finally learned to respond on the talk page, but is still mass-editing the page, including misspellings, invalid categories, and talk about the page on the page itself. And that's before going into the actual changes, which may be useful at some point. I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the page as well: I suspect that more reverts may be necessary before this is all settled. Turnstep 20:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Please check. Thanks.--Sean|Black 23:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advocating

Thankyou for trying to work as a sort of advocate for me, but I'm afraid that if I think that someone is actually wrong, I will correct them. The consensus is irrelevant, I can find people to match it, despite being accused of lying. I shall, therefore, revert it, and when I get blocked, I may resort to sock-puppeting (note the may, not will). Yours,--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 13:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever shall we do?

Alright, this is starting to annoy me. Do you think that we'll have to file an RfC? I don't want to, but it looks like we're running out of options.--Sean|Black 22:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who, if you're interested.--Sean|Black 19:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Die Zauberflöte

hello there Josiah Rowe,

you moved the Zauberflöte to Magic Flute. I think it would have been better if you would have posted a moving discussion on it first with the {move|The Magic Flute} tab, instead of posting a question on one day, and then declaring on the next day that no one has objected and therefore it will be moved. It is good that you asked first, however 1 day cannot be considered a serious waiting period in Wikipedia. There are many cases of operas and Singspiel which are kept in the original language. Therefore I am not quite sure about the naming policy myself, think though that a thorough discussion should come first before any moving is done. Gryffindor 14:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Black RfA

Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Black 08:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TheDoctor10

I am preparing an RFC against User:TheDoctor10 for speculation, revert warring and personal attacks. Would you please review the draft User:TimPope/Requests for Comment/TheDoctor10 and leave any comments on my talk page if you would be prepared to endorse if I should list it formally at WP:RFC. I would also be grateful for any additional examples of any attempts you have made to resolve the dispute.

Thanks! --TimPope 10:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfC

Take a glance at the expansion of my response here, please. Thanks,--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict at List of villains

sorry!! editing at the same time! wait a sec, i' triin to re do your improvements

—previous unsigned comment by User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow, 05:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Villains

Why you sabotage the page? 213.114.215.199 14:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hey, i'm still treading lightly around wikipedia making minor additions here and there. I've recently found an article that i'd like to add more information to in order to uplift it out of stub status. I'm having difficulty determining when I should explicitly cite sources. I found a video interview online where the actress states several things herself. However, citing the one source over and over seems awkward especially if I plan on paraphrasing the information. If I were making a verbatim extraction of a quote perhaps, then I can see the necessity for citation. I mean, there is information such as birthdate, birthlocation, current spouse. And none of that is cited, you know? I was going to post this on one of the more formal question areas, but I wanted a more colloquial answer first. Karmon 08:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your prompt response. And yes, your answer helped quite a bit. I was working on an actress' article, and all the stuff I added was factual, non-controversial. Thanks for the friendly help, say, is there like a friends list on wikipedia. At first glance I would assume it is the watchlist, but I believe that is for monitoring articles by a certain user. It is not necessarily an active list of 'friends' on wikipedia. Karmon 18:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfC - another thread

Cc: Tim Pope, Khaosworks, Sean Black, Snowspinner, 23skidoo

I know I'm not quite ready for an RfA yet, but since my RfC has been up for five days now, should it come down (especially since I'm away all weekend anyway).--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summer plans?

Hey Josiah, thought I'd direct your attention to Wikimania. It's close to you, and I'm sure that you'd enjoy it. Plus, I'll be there :). Cheers, Sean|Black 09:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Villains

It sounds great to me, what you are trying to achieve. I shall try to add a few more cases of "villains" as you suggested to even up the balance. I think I can get away with deleting the silly ones like Erwin Rommel. I mean, fancy quoting "the Desert Fox", as portaying him as a villain. He was portrayed kind to his family and loyal to his men, fought against Hitler after realising he had to be stopped, even British Officers saluted him, and Churchill made a special speech to praise him for his chivilry. I am always uncomfortable with any article which portrays the negativity of people. I liked the List of Heroes better, as it was positive. O well. I suppose it is a sign of the times. Wallie 19:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the film "Patton". Rommel was as simply played as being away when the D Day landing occured. The film did not portray Rommel as a villain, more as an irrevelance, who was no match for the great "Blood and Guts". Patton himself was shown as a villain on quite a few occasions like when he executed a farmer holding up his tanks on a bridge, and also assaulted a man who had shell shock in a hospital. For the latter, he was repremanded. Anyway, Patton should not be quoted as a film, as it depicts real events and people, and is not fiction. Wallie 20:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-fictional heroes

I can see your point about List of historical people portrayed as heroes being valid in light of the existence of other articles in its vein, however, it would appear to me that the consensus on the AfD page was to delete List of non-fictional heroes. If you would like to start List of historical people portrayed as heroes and ensure that the new page has appropriate restrictions that satisfy the concerns raised on the AfD page, then please go ahead and do so. If you would like, I can make available the text of the deleted page as a reference if you so desire. However, I don't believe I can just undelete it like that after it's gone through AfD: the appropriate channel is a request via Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cheers. Enochlau 22:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've pasted it onto a subpage of your user page: User:Josiah Rowe/Temp - I hope that's ok. I couldn't get the wiki source code, only the rendered version, unfortunately. If you want to delete the Temp page after you've done with it, just tag it with a {{delete}} and an admin will come around and delete it. Enochlau 22:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giving up on Villains

Josiah, I'm leaving this page alone moving forward despite having meaningful things to add to it. I'm tired of this switch back and forth from alphabet to (IMHO) the more useful categorized villains. If you guys agree to a more stable page, I'll help out. --Happylobster 14:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll

Isn't it simpler to advise 213.114.215.199 what the format of the page is to be? He obviously likes the heroes and villains lists. I personally am not fussed, as long as it (the format) is sensible. The main objection to me is that the format keeps changing. I would have thought it was in everyones' interest including 213.114.215.199 to have a non changing format, whatever it is. If we have any poll, we also need to tell 213.114.215.199 what to do so he can take part in it too. So what do you want me to do now? Wallie 12:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will write to 213.114.215.199. Wallie 19:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Appears that everyone is now happy with the current format... Wallie 10:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is OK now. I think he just wants to contribute to the heroes and villains articles. I also think he has the wrong idea about you (and possibly me), as you appear to me to be very easy going and reasonable. Wallie 08:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Critisicms: naturalistic science fiction

Josaiah, thanks for your vote of support. I'm all for improving the criticisms section. Since that section of the article is so controversial, I guess it should be removed till everyone can agree with what to do with it. I'm not sure though whether or not it could warrant a new page. I found the Greg Benford quote for now (see the talk page at the article). Also I remember reading something in a Tom Baker interview about how modern sci-fi movies are are more flash than anything else. Baker claimed, for example, that he couldn't figure out what Men in Black was supposed to be about. It was in a Doctor Who monthly magazine about five years back.

Interesting note about the understated socio-political commentary: From the old school, the Trek episode you mentioned (Frank Gorshin R.I.P.) "Let that be your last battlefield", there has always been a tendency for shows to right out do an in-your-face "were tackling racism" episode. Just because racism is such a volatile issue. So I guess, with the exception of racism, back then, we didn't consistently have socio-political commentary jammed down our throats.

You are definitely right about the fantastic vs. mundane. I've noticed in a lot of the 90s Trek episodes, they spent too much time showing the crew doing mundane everyday things. The "strange new worlds" and "boldly going" part somehow got relegated to the background. Often those scenarios went unresolved or hastily deux ex machina'd in favor of resolving whatever personal or emotional crisis a character was going through. We saw a little too much of Troi and her chocolate fetish, Riker and his trombone, and in Voyager, everyone jumpin' in and outta bed. But I've read a lot of criticisms against the use of cheap, steamy sex for drama both on later Trek and new BSG. That, along with the excessive agnst you mentioned. All in all, these things don't really give a sci-fi rookie any sense that there's a reason these shows need to be set in outer space.

I give you as an example one of my absolute favorite anime that will probably never be brought over to the U.S or U.K: Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Sadly, it's only available via partial fansub or import DVD. Althought there are epic space battles (all set to classical music), this anime show will appear slow, dull and boring to many because of the "talking head" phenomenon (lots of dialogue). There's lots of political intrigue and character interaction and development among the literal cast of thousands. But all of it is relevant to the plot. There is no angst just for it's own sake. There's no cheap sex (in fact, I've yet to see one sex scene and I'm forty two eps into the show) and there are no characters played just for sex. Given a comparison to other SF shows, characters like Reinhard, Yang, ect, deal with the turmoil in their lives with a lot more dignity than all the bitching, moaning, and whining that goes on in other shows. It doesn't really fit Moore's definition of naturalistic. This show does take itself very seriously but it's more in the tradition of the romantic/classical or Shakespearan tragedy as opposed to the gritty/cynical/angst ridden nature of BSG. Closest thing available to LOGH that you might have access to is anything starring Captain Harlock.

I've read that Moore essay ("taking the opera out of space opera') and to many people, he is conspicuously referring to old school shows becuase there is nothing else really to compare to. Literary SF has always been worlds apart. In the meantime, I'll look for commentary from long-term SF writers (other than the popularized Harlan Ellison experience with The Starlost since that's a different story).

Hopefully Ricimer will actually contribute something too. His edit comments don't strike me as an openminded kind of guy. Mr. ATOZ 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot's Lantern dispute

See here.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 17:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains

You asked why i deleded it wase before. Becorce i don't liked to organized by the medium in which they originated. I will have it it wase before. 213.114.215.199 18:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC

Yes, You are rele, rele sorry. 213.114.215.199 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains (again)

What happened? You took out a bunch of real people and then put them back. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that's what you'd done. Here's a better one. An anon was making several edits to an English soccer team. I was checking them out for vandalism but they were all valid so I hit the rollback button anyway. Followed by a mad scramble to put them back. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Firefly's Star System

Yeah I firgured this was going to start some kind of stupid debate, and since it's just a sci-fi series I hate arguing over this because it's really pointless. I saw the discussion but it's way to long to read all of it, I don't have the time right now, anyway it seems to be bickering about what scientific terms to use not if there was one or more stars. About multiple stars; my source is the role-playing game which is based on Whedon's notes who contruted to the authors work). In there they have a map of the 'Verse section which is a diagram of the star systems in Serenity/Firefly. I believe the the diagram, like much of the art in the book is taken directly for the movie. More specifially, the solar system diagram which was on a display screen on the ship. It clearly shows more than one star with several dozen planets orbting everywhere. (Kinda in a pentagram shape - some esoteric reference probably). Miranda is a rogue world which orbits the whole thing apparently. Everyone refers back to the computer diagram in the opening of Serenity which shows only one system, that would be the star system Osiris is in, since River and Simon are from that world. I keep adding "multiple stars" to the setting part and everyone keeps deleting it. I know if mention the RPG game everyone will scream "it's non-CANON Blah Blah Blah" as always. Cyberia23 22:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly know what you mean about not wanting to get into a long involved debate over something as trivial as a sci-fi series. (It sometimes astounds me what people will spend their time and energy arguing about here.) We could probably avoid the argument if the diagram you refer to is in Serenity: The Official Companion, which has a lot of pre-production and production art from the film. I'll take a look at that tonight or tomorrow and see if I can find anything definitive one way or the other. (Alternatively, when I get the DVD I can try to find the frame with the Miranda map — if it's clear from that then that would settle the debate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I haven't seen the official companion book yet. I'll have to look for it. Oh, and by "clear", I mean the diagram in the RPG book is clear, it's a full page illustration, and I believe I saw it briefly in the movie or something that looked similar to it on one of Serenity's monitors. I think it was the sceen where River finally snaps and hijacks the ship and Mal is confronting her in the cockpit. I don't know how clear it will be on the DVD release if you can see it at all. A cinema screen is very large compaired to TV. But you might have a 50-inch plasma display or something, I dunno. Cyberia23 02:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hey, I got nothing on that vandal. I've just reverted some stuff from them in the past (spent a little time today cleaning up after them. I don't understand the anti-semitism thing either. Sjcodysseus 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whom

How embarrassing to be caught as a grammatical poseur... however, what seems worse to me is that the sentence... or whatever it is... doesn't really make sense. Shouldn't it be changed to something the following?

According to Hillerman, they became captivated by the Sangre de Cristo range and the presence of mule deer tracks.

Dpbsmith (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

hi, i founs a new way to organize the List of Villains by using |width="33"|  |valign="top"| but i still not quite like the results, especially when there's necesary to put an aclaration below the character, because that maxes the next character apear after an empty space like this

 
  • Michael Jackson

not the singer

  • The Boogeyman
  • Somedude
  
  • Michael Jackson

not the singer

  • The Boogeyman
  • Somedude
  
  • Michael Jackson

Not the singer

  • The Boogeyman
  • Somedude

You see? f**@#$%&!! :| :S... Ok it is not doing it in here, but believe me it does, and looks like this:

 
  • Michael Jackson

not the singer


  • The Boogeyman
  • Somedude
  
  • Michael Jackson

not the singer


  • The Boogeyman
  • Somedude
  
  • Michael Jackson

Not the singer


  • The Boogeyman
  • Somedude

Maybe you can help me develop a method to make the 3 columns lists look better --T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 21:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...nevermind...i discovered the <br> command

Hey...

Merry Christmas! I hope you're holiday is a good one, Josiah, and I'm terribly glad that I get to see this the day after (I can thank the CBC for that one). Anyways, do be happy tommorrow and the days following.--Sean|Black 07:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hey, rowe!

i wwas thinking about it... you are the authority on this so i wouldn't dare touch Dr. Who, but... would it be logical to have the , radio, novel, and comicbook dr. who villains on the tv section in a format symilar to what i did to Baby-doll and Harley Queen on the batman section?? so that the fans can see more comftable all dr. villin in the same section acknoledging the source medium from those villains that are not from tv but from a world created on tv??? againd, this is your call, i wouldn dare to touch it if you dis agree--T for Trouble-maker 22:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC) PS: merry xmas!!![reply]

uhh, i also started with the wrong foot editing the Batman and Superman page, can you help me: constructive criticism to my ever idiotic actions and contributions to the article, as well as your aid to explain to these people what i'm triing to do and what could be done and some of your always so appropiate editions to the article would be nice....uh, and its a big package..wouldn't blame you if you don't take it--T for Trouble-maker 02:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This T for Trouble-maker must be stopped from his rampant unilateral edits to Superman and Batman. He deletes willynilly and adds unencyclopedic material. Dyslexic agnostic 03:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeelp

This is my first time reportning, i ashamed to do this Dyslexic agnostic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for atarters, ths stalking harassment-lover has emptied the Bat-embargo page, insulted me and my editions directly, i've tried to make peace repeatedly, explaining him that i feel ofended, vandalized my own page writting sturr i repeatedly told him not to, i got out of control and swear indirecty at him in that very space. lately he reverted my editions writting insulting summaries in the Batman, batman villains and superman articles. Please, at least make him stop or met me in the middle point or something. He is also confused about article sizes. i've not been that smart daling with him but i think i deserve beter--T for Trouble-maker 09:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)woow i saw what he has been doing with everythink i write...scary[reply]

Anglican userbox

Hi, it may interest you to know there is now an Anglican userbox. It's {{user religion|anglican}}. --Angr (t·c) 09:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi!, Nice to read form you again! Dr. Who is your call. I think you know better about that. Whatever you do, I think is the best for the character. It was just an observation. Because that's how I worked whit the villains I feel I can organize with no problem. It’s seems I worked things out. He was undoing everything in my watch list and talking to every one I know. That was creeping me out, but is seems we are good pals now. I realized that if he is following me I could use his energies to mark my grammar mistakes. Happy Holydays!!

--T for Trouble-maker 03:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: Also, I’d like take down the message on top of the List of Villains. I think it belongs to another era. This page is totally different now. I even started with a 3 columns format. I hope it works out.

I know!! hah, hah. That's the same way you became my good friend.--T for Trouble-maker 03:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how do you do this:

put up a vote... shoot. it had a longitudinal line crossing the sentence from one p... to ...e. like underlined but in the middle. It's a sencence you wrote in happyloabter's talk page--T for Trouble-maker 22:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)... forget it <s> </s>[reply]

Linking dates

Sorry!!! I honestly though I was doing the right thing. Won't happen again, promise! Thanks for telling me, Josiah. NP Chilla 23:32, 29 December 2005

Not asking for intervention, or deep exploration of the case, just for personal advise based on what i'm saying and showing here

Hi, Josiah. I'm just bothering you again, this time only to help me get perspective:

It's a good thing somebody like dyslexic is following me since I have bat temper and soo poor self control... but i feel humiliated when he blind revert's my edits and puts rude coments on the summaries; he is not even trying to copyedit my stuff he just either blind reverts it or just massacres it. And he never writes anything for any article, and the only time he did he was way wrong*.

There is not one single page I can go he won't follow me. It's like he is forbidding me to edit anything. Wherever I go he follows; who ever I talk to he talks to. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy! what can I do? It'd be ok if he followed me to copiedit the mistakes I'm sure I can make, already told him I wouldn't mind first consulting with me before editing... I even tried once. I think he is not willing cooperate. I feel like he is just sensoring me and whatever I write. I'm not sure, but I think the first thing he does in the morning is check my contributions and undo them all. I feel like I can't be productive anymore.

I have done good things in the past. The list of villains categories format was my idea (even though then i noticed some others like you had already proposed it way above in the talk page) I stuck there and after a couple monts, hard work and your magic (you probably did more than I, I realice... I'm not that self absorbed heheh), we finished categorizing all villains an now it doesn't get nominated for deletion on a regular basis... I also did the Bat-Embargo page. From nothing. A page I'm afraid he want's to massacre. I have to assume good faith... but still...I dunno he said: **

But since he started folliwing me I'm not abble to acomplish anything. I've been rude in the past ans I feel sorry for myself whenever I have to admit it. The truth is that I really admire Rosiah, Cleared as Filed's temple and I'd like to be like them. But I can't change that fast... I'm too stubborn, and red boned, it's not so easy... I'm trying though, but cred is a hard thing to get once you lost it, everybody expects me do be rude and they don't buy me when I try to change.

I guess I'm just asking for advice. I wouldn't like Dyslexic to be baned or punished in any way, and I'm not even asking you to talk to him. I think he is a good guy after all. But I don't know what to do. It's a nightmare. And I'm confused and depressed, I only want you and a couple of other editors who I'm also asking, to iluminate me with some of your wisedom. I'm asking for kind words of advice.

Thanks beforehand

--T for Trouble-maker 21:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. Remember, I horribly insulted him with profanity (I replied f you a couple times on his talk page) when I lost temper in the past because I assumed hypocricy instead of good faith...A big mistake on my part, of course; which I why I maybe deserve what is happening to me.

* The only 2 times I can recall he wrote something, Dyslexic Agnostic was horribly mistaken. here... Check it out To me, this is almost insulting. And I my vertion clearly says that the Ventriloquist, Black Mask and Killer Croc are from 80's. Dyslexic don't even seems to pay attention to what he blind reverts...uh, right, blind revert. I get it.
** Sorry, but I can't... I don't see why this Bat-embargo is so important! It only applies to DC animated series, which are not important in themselves. Dyslexic agnostic 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
And I replied:
I get the feeling you are just going to wet yourself laughing at my sorry ass...but I'm starting to get the feeling you actually don't care for the Animated series...or anything you edit at all: I haven't seen you put some info yet*, but only take of whatever I write. And reduce, reduce, reduce... There are other ways of editing, you know?
I'm very sorry to say so, but what else can I think? you "edit" (or more like blind reverse) my whole contribs list! What else can I think of you??! To me, you don't think anything is worth having in an article. This is the only track I can think of you: Save memory, save memory, save memory! I'm starting to get confused about your intentions here.
I haven't felt useful for a while now. I'm even starting to get depres whenever I think about the wikipedia. I asked you in every posible way: rude, nice, sarcastic, friendly...Nothing seems to work with you? What do you want from me? you won't help me because I feellike if I'm only a big joke to you.
Thanks for your time. Looking fowrt to really start cooperating to you, (T for Trouble-maker 20:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

RE: Reverted member addition to WikiProject

Ahh, I see. When I saw it, the account hadn't been created: If there's no "user contributions" link, then the account doesn't exist. I just saw it too quickly- I assume he was creating his account at the same time. I'll revert my own edit. Thanks!--Sean|Black 02:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. You should archive this talk page. P.S.S. I want to nominate somebody for adminship—interested?[reply]

Hmm, I see. Really though, it's shockingly usefull to have admin tools- I thought that I would lose track of articles too, but I'm doing just fine. Anyways, like I said, I'm willing to nominate you in a New York minute should you decide to join the cabal :).--Sean|Black 04:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Josiah_Rowe/Archive_1&oldid=1085960776"