User talk:Josiah Rowe/Archive 3

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 from March and April of 2006.

1
2
Archive 3
4
5
6
7
8
10
20

Dead white males

Thanks for your message regarding "Dead White Males." Let me assure you that it was not vandalism. While I understand your position on the matter, it makes me cringe to see Harold Bloom in the same paragraph as "Ten things I hate about you." Indeed, one is a brilliant literary critic, and the other one is a trashy knock-off movie. At any rate, I appreciate all that Wikipedia offers, and perhaps we can come to a mutually acceptable edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.207.45.40 (talk • contribs) 15:54, March 2, 2006 (UTC), and subsequently moved from archive page

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic case closed

A final decision has been made in this case and it has been closed. --Tony Sidaway 14:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Wicked (novel)

I'm kind of inexperienced here. What does "original research" mean? Thanks. -Tenfour 18:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clear explanation. I fixed up the parts about Yackle and the Dwarf regarding your concerns. Yes, they are mysterious, but Elphaba speculates about them in the novel, so I put it in terms of Elphaba's thoughts. I may try adding sections about politics and religion when I have time in the next couple of weeks. -Tenfour 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BF infoboxes

Which infoxboxes are you doing as I just got an edit conflict on Red Dawn... ;-) Tim | meep in my general direction 19:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Drwhostub-02.JPG

"created by"... I would like to clarify if its photograhped by the user or photoshopped... A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 05:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Executive producer credits

Thanks for letting me know. I found executive producer credits for these stories on the web site Outpost Gallifrey, though I can see how this might be an assumption on thier part. Justin Foote 01:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Orman

I am genuinely sorry if you believed I was referring to you when I asked why fans make fun of Ms. Orman; I can assure you, Josiah, that I was not. I truly hope you weren't offended!

What I meant was in various "humour" pages on websites like this one, she is depicted as some sort of "lunatic", or having a foot fetish [1], and so forth. That was what I was wondering. Please forgive me if I upset you - I wouldn't do that for the world. NP Chilla 10:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HG2G

Hmm... The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy says HG2G is another common abbr. It makes more sense anyway. H2G2 is an abbr of HHGG but it's not shorter... :| -- infinity0 14:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a fan did add HG2G to that page, for Hitchhiker's Guide To (two) the Galaxy, and subsequent editors have let it stand. But that's only because it's one of MANY such abbreviations listed there. The abbreviation that Adams himself preferred was H2G2, especially as that's what he named his h2g2.com (now part of bbc.co.uk) website after. Thus for the Douglas Adams article, where only a couple of the most common abbreviations are listed, the H2G2 usage IS preferred. --JohnDBuell 19:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living Legend (Doctor Who audio)

The REAL reason I came by your talk page is to ask if you or the other WikiProject Doctor Who folk also want to include the Living Legend article into the project, and tag it on the talk page accordingly? --JohnDBuell 19:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you on both counts! --JohnDBuell 20:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused

What did I do incorrectly? Perhaps I must reevaluate my Wikipedian contribution tactics (WCT). Did I make a typo? -211.31.85.94 05:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made those hiphop edits; my brother was on this computer earlier so he is probably the culprit; I will tell him to stop the vandalism. -211.31.85.94 05:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I failed to observe that Globo also made spelling corrections in Imbros and Tenedos. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Television!

Don't worry too much about it. As I've often said, it's just one of those stupid things that make me narrow my eyes and growl when I see it in formal writing. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dickclarkfan1

Note: since Dickclarkfan1 has shown a predilection for blanking his user talk page, I've copied my comments from his talk page to mine and integrated them so as to show the flow of conversation. The first communication from him was this, posted on my user page: [2]:

JOSIAH ROWE, DON'T EVER CHANGE ONE OF MY ENTRIES AGAIN. SIGEND: DICKCLARKFAN1

I responded:

Hello. I'm sorry that you seem to have taken offence to my removal of your edit to Christopher Eccleston. However, the fact is that Christopher Eccleston had made the decision to leave Doctor Who before the first episode of the new series even aired, which means that the show's popularity cannot have been a factor in his decision to leave. Furthermore, even if this had been the case, without a citation from an interview with Eccleston or some other notable person, any discussion of his reasons for leaving the programme is purely speculative, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, and we can report speculative theories only if they've been published in a notable secondary source. In the context of Doctor Who, this would mean the British press, fan magazines like Doctor Who Magazine or SFX, or (in some, limited cases) reliable fan websites such as Outpost Gallifrey (the site itself, not its forum). If you can provide such a citation, please feel free to restore the deleted text.

I should also mention that the attitude you've displayed in your edit to my user page is not particularly helpful. First of all, it's considered somewhat rude to write messages on another user's page; if you wish to communicate, please use the user talk page. It's also considered rude to type in ALL CAPITALS — this is usually interpreted as shouting. Wikipedia has a policy of civility. If you have a disagreement with another user, the appropriate course of action is a polite note on the user's talk page, not a shouted command on their user page. Your edits to my user page and Arwel Parry's could be interpreted as vandalism. Please do not do this again.

Finally, I'd like to draw your attention to the notice at the bottom of the page every time you make an edit: it says, in bold letters, If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if you wish to participate in it it is necessary to have give-and-take with other users. This means that no one user owns a page or any part thereof; pages are edited by consensus. I notice that when you reinserted your comment on Christopher Eccleston, another user removed it. This may suggest that there is a consensus not to include speculation about his motives for leaving Doctor Who. However, if you feel that you are being persecuted, you may bring the issue up on the talk page. I promise that if there is a consensus supporting your addition, I will respect it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Rowe, its simple. If I edit something in an article or create an article, its contents are ALWAYS validated by one sourse or fans. And for your info, the reports of Chris's leaving Doctor Who were not released until the first episode aired in England.

I'll say it again, NEVER delete something I put in an article. You forget that THE MEMBERS of wikipedia make this Encylopedia, NOT THE ADMINS.

Our job is to create the articles and to correct them if they are wrong. You lost that right, when you agreed to become an admin. YOUR JOB is to make sure they are not vandalized. End of story.

And if any other admin reading this has a problem with my views, so be it. But the members in general are getting tired of you guys doing something to our work without telling us. Other members its fine, we have a code of honor. Admins its not fine cause you all think wikipedia belongs to you, it doesn't. It belongs to US, THE MEMBERS, NOT THE ADMINS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dickclarkfan1 (talk • contribs) 23:56, March 18, 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got the wrong impression about the role of administrators on Wikipedia. Administrators are not a different class of editor, with the sole responsibility of removing vandalism. We are editors, just like every other user, except with a few additional tools at our disposal. Administrators are expected and encouraged to continue the normal work of editors, in addition to fighting vandals and cleaning up after them. Please read Wikipedia:Administrators.

When I removed your addition to the Eccleston article, it was not in my role as an administrator. I did not use the administrator's revert (which generates an automatic script, "Reverted edits by User:soandso to last version by User:suchandsuch"). I removed the comments, with an explanation of my reasoning in the edit summary. If I had used the administrator's rollback revert, you might have an argument for saying that I was abusing my role, since the rollback tool is intended for vandalism. However, I did not treat your edit as vandalism — I treated it as a good-faith edit which was, unfortunately, neither accurate nor verifiable (to the best of my knowledge). Saying, "If I edit something in an article or create an article, its contents are ALWAYS validated by one sourse [sic] or fans" is not good enough, I'm afraid. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability, and the burden of proof is on the editor who adds information to show a citation supporting it if it is challenged. If you do have a source for your edit, please provide it.

As for the content of the edit, it is true that the news of Eccleston's departure was not leaked until after "Rose" aired. However, the decision for him to leave was made earlier, and I believe he had even filmed his last scene by the time the programme aired. If you doubt my information, we can discuss this at Talk:Christopher Eccleston; indeed, I encourage you to do this. There are many editors who are very knowledgeable about Doctor Who, and I'm sure any of them will be able to clarify the chronology for you.

Finally, I hope that you understand that my removal of your addition was not personal. It was about the information, not you. Please try to keep cool. I did not "do something to your work without telling you". I used the edit summary to explain my reasons, which is widely considered an appropriate course of action. It was not necessary or appropriate for you to take umbrage — I did not attack you, and did nothing inappropriate. I hope that if you feel the need to continue this discussion, either on our talk pages or at Talk:Christopher Eccleston, you will remain civil and cool. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Warning: Do not remove anything I add to an article again

Listen, I don't care what you say. You're not an expert on Doctor Who, nor are the people that use that blog. Being that my job is to write about television, I think that makes me an expert on the subject, and gives me a little more creditbility.

I told you twice, pray I don't have to tell you a third time, or i'll be taking it to your superiors. DO NOT REMOVE SOMETHING I PUT IN AN ARTICE AGAIN.

I write for a living, and when you do something to my work when I know it is fact, MY CREDITBILITY GOES DOWN THE CRAPPER.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dickclarkfan1 (talk • contribs) 01:37, March 19, 2006 (UTC)

You'll "take it to [my] superiors"? Who would that be — the arbitration committee? Because I can guarantee the ArbCom would laugh at this case. I will continue to use my judgement about edits, just as any Wikipedia editor does. And I will respect the policies on consensus and verifiability. (By the way, have you read any of the links I've provided here? I'm not just spouting my own opinions. Everything I've said here is backed up by Wikipedia policy.)

I'm not sure what "blog" you're referring to, but I never claimed to be a Doctor Who expert, just a reasonably knowledgeable fan. It was not my intent to damage your "creditbility" [sic], just to make sure that the article contains verifiable and accurate information. If you are concerned about the article, discuss it on the article's talk page. If you are concerned about my behavior, you may bring it up with other administrators at the administrators' noticeboard. However, I will ignore any further "warnings" on my talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You can sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes, like this:~~~~. The system software will automatically convert it to a signature and timestamp.

"Creditbility." That may be the funniest thing I've read in quite a while. I think that deserves addition to eggcorn. I do hope that Dick Clark's #1 Fan goes to "your superiors". I'd like to know who they are, too. —Leflyman^Talk 06:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just stay away from the articles I work on

Just stay away from ANY article I have a hand in from now on, that INCLUDES Doctor Who or any articles I create. Its an honorable request, and I suggest you follow it if you don't want this to go any futher. Dickclarkfan1 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but if I see your name on an article that I frequently work on AFTER I have made an addition, this whole thing starts over, and will only get worse. And you can be sure I FREQUENTLY check who is editing articles I have worked on. Dickclarkfan1 06:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my contributions you will see that I have been editing Doctor Who articles on Wikipedia for some time. I won't go out of my way to check up on your edits, but I will not alter my watchlist or editing habits just because your nose is out of joint. Sorry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One small problem, just like this is YOUR user page, that is MY user page. I can leave or remove whatever I want on it. Its bad form yes, but its not aganist the rules. So when I clear it out this time, I better not see it put back by you or the two friends that have jumped up to defend you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dickclarkfan1 (talk • contribs) 01:41, March 20, 2006 (UTC)

You "better not"? The attitude still needs work, I'm afraid. Incidentally, I've never had any significant dealings or conversations with User:Kzollman or User:Rory096. They're not my friends, and that's not why they reverted your blanking. They reverted it because they were enforcing Wikipedia practices — not rules, yes, but common practices. In the interest of helping you cool down, I'm not going to revert it myself — but don't be surprised if another editor restores the warnings soon. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also Wikipedia:Talk page#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?, which makes it clear that talk page blanking is discouraged. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dickclarkfan1"

Thats because this matter is between THE FOUR OF US, not all of Wikipedia. If I don't want the public to know about it, then that is my business. I'll say this again, discouraged yes, but NOT AGANIST THE RULES. Now if I clear it out, I want it to stay out. Better yet, if you wish, i'll supply a Yahoo!, AIM, and MSN Messenger screen name if you wish to continue this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickclarkfan1 (talk • contribs) 14:43, March 20, 2006

I'm not interested in chatting with you. I'm actually not interested in continuing this discussion — I just want you to understand and accept the spirit of openness on Wikipedia. But I'm not going to bother with it any more — I've done what I can to explain the relevant policies to you. Just bear in mind that this incident will probably not be looked well on in future if you ever have any other conflicts on Wikipedia. I will also point out that if you receive any official warnings and remove them, that will be considered vandalism and treated accordingly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dickclarkfan1"

Why not if its true? Cause that is how you have been acting the last 3 days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dickclarkfan1 (talk • contribs) 16:58, March 20, 2006 (UTC)

My milestone counting

Hi again, Josiah! This is the first time I actually tried using the [+] tab at the top of a talk page, so wish me luck with this - actually I had another good first today, using the new PHP <ref> system - but I digress.... You were asking me about my own milestone counting, which I started as a sort of way to see how far and how fast I was reaching every 500 edits or so, though this has become a bit redundant since Interiot's user counter now gives neat little graphs for edits per month. I hadn't seen that anyone had done a milestone edit counter/calculator yet, I knew I was close to 4000 and counted backwards.... Perhaps someone should suggest to one of the wiki tool server users, like Interiot, to add such a thing? I know wikicounts don't really mean a hill of beans, but it's still kinda cool. I'm just over 4000 edits in just less than one year of being a registered user (and I have no idea how many edits I could have included if I'd registered in late 2004 instead).... Again, meaningless, but kinda cool! Sorry I'm rambling here - it's my LONG answer to your question :) --JohnDBuell 04:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I should have known better than to put heading tags in a heading field. Shame on me. Methinks it's WAY past time for me to be in bed :) --JohnDBuell 04:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! My sore fingers thank you too! 23skidoo 03:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PP

Hey! Please try not to overlook adding a page you protect to the list of currently protected pages at WP:PP. Thanks a bunch. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits of the Gift_of_Men Tolkien page

(wikification; headers should be lowercase, per WP:MOS; removed POV statements (article shouldn't express a point of view ("this author")); formatting footnote)

Just so you know, I am the original author of the "spiritual view..." section of this page, and the first paragraph of the next section. I hope you have some appreciation for the quality of the writing.

I don't mind refinements to the work, by fellow Tolkien enthusiasts, but I dislike arbitrary edits by anyone who appears to be a "tourist". Your edits REMOVED a key insight about the nature of how evil entered the Tolkien world through weaving of incompatible themes in the original myth of the world being created through themes of the great music.

Are these comments REALLY that bad? ...

(It is the interpretation of this author that there can be no damaging of the themes as happened in the first Great Music, when competing wills created the first marring of Arda, and sowed the seeds of evil.)

(*) Stories abound in "The Silmarillion" of the stark choices that some have had to make when their intrinsic nature as a member of a particular race came into conflict with the finality of the Gift. See the stories of Beren and Luthien, Elrond and Elros, and Earendil. Also see the story of Aragorn and Arwen in the Lord of the Rings. These stories might confer additional insights for the interested reader.

After all, the whole idea of discussing Tolkien's "Gift of Men" (ie. WHY was the race of men 'doomed to die') is itself an act of interpretation, ie. a Point of View.

If you must edit, do NOT remove information for dogmatic reasons; remove information only if its incorrect or does not add anything to the article. Remove only as a last resort!

To satisfy your peeve about POV, I will re-add this information in a more 3rd person way, when I have time.

--SanjaySingh 20:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Barnstar

Thanks Josiah, I knew I'd get one one day :-) Just got to do all the Big Finish audios now. I had anticipated that the task could be automated using AWB but it turned out I couldn't figure out how, so I ended up doing it the old-fashioned way. Tim (meep) 16:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC) And you even spelt labour with a 'u' :-) Tim (meep) 16:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoofs/Dead Ringers

Sorry Josiah. I had no idea I was really editing such a popular article tonight. You're the third person working on it simultaneously. Heh, inusefor tag is down, and I've contributed what I know. Do your thang, good sir.CzechOut 06:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding--and your help with "Britishisms". I'm having SUCH a problem with that. Despite "knowing" what the British spelling of things is, it's confusing sometimes because my auto-spell-checker jumps on programme and lisence and realise faster than a weevil on rice. CzechOut 06:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gift of Men page - No, you're not a tourist... you're a smart guy

>I'm not a hard-core Tolkien scholar, but I am a Tolkien fan (that is, I've read the Silmarillion > several times, and most of the History of Middle-Earth volumes at least once, but I'm not au fait > with the ins and outs of "Tokien criticism").

I am in a similar situation, I have read the books a few times through the years.

But one thing I do have that sets me apart from most others is a minor in philosophy, so I have a clear taxonomy of the philosophical ideas that underlie most Christian or monotheistic theologies.

That perhaps gives me more powerful insights into abstract ideas like the Gift of Men than most others might have. There are a lot of powerful ideas bound up in the Tolkien idea of the Gift: death, spiritual unrest, free will, virtue, destiny, self-determination, and to be honest, I scoured the net before writing up my own thoughts on the matter, and I believe that what I have written up excels anything else out there on the net.

> I hope you noticed that I didn't remove the note about the choices which Elves and Men have had to > make; I just formatted it so that it was a standard footnote, instead of a jury-rigged one > indicated with an asterisk (*).

Yes, I noticed. The jury-rigged stuff is my own naivette in terms of Wikipedia style.

> I removed two comments which explicitly suggested that the reader might find such-and-such > interesting, because I don't think it's appropriate encyclopedic style to tell the reader what he > or she should find interesting: we should present information with pointers towards further study, > which the reader can choose to follow up on or not as he or she sees fit. But that's mainly a > stylistic problem — I think that it should be possible to present the same indicators in a way > that isn't leading.

The examples I was citing are directly relevant to the Gift concept because they explore the choices made by characters in the stories when offered a choice between an earth-bound immortality, and the spiritual freedom offered by the Gift. Contrary to what most people out there would believe, some chose the Gift over immortality, and this should at least be mentioned, rather than deleted. If I had the time, I would explore each of these examples, but I am but a humble staff member in an engineering department, not a writer, so I did what I could.

Just as an aside, I did start an engineering project at my campus called the Silmarillion Project, involving wireless power from space, and its like a Silmaril in that a system would receive light, and transform it to a different kind of energy. But its still in the very early stages.

> As for the specific line about the Great Music, I presume that your argument about its > incorruptibility is based on something in Tolkien's writings. If so, it should be possible to > quote or reference it without having to resort to saying "the interpretation of this author".

Yes, there is a line in the Silmarillion about "the themes of Illuvatar shall be truly played aright" or some such... the point I was trying to make was that evil in the world tainted the Gift and made it something to fear, rather than give oneself up to, as originally intended.

> Alternatively, if the interpretation is one which has been discussed in Tolkien scholarship, we > could say "Tolkien scholar so-and-so wrote in My Big Book of Middle-Earth Theology that the

Given the utter lack of discussion on this topic by all the Tolkien scholars out there, I am more inclined to consider my own interpretations at least as admissible. After all, I have a brain, and I can provide quality discourse about the topic.

> If I had felt confident enough in my own Tolkien scholarship to rephrase the note myself, I would > have done so, but as you say I'm more of a "tourist". (However, I hope I'm one who's sufficiently > familiar with the guide book that I won't damage the artefacts, to stretch the metaphor.)

No, given what you have written, you are qualified enough to at least try to rephrase it. I would say that Tolkien's Silmarillion work is the most intellectually demanding, but I have read philosophy stuff that would render it to be childs play. It was a 4th year philosophy course, Being and Existence that I took many years ago. It rewired my brain, it did. The aside about the music is not 100% germaine to the Gift of Men concept, but I felt it was an insight that was timely and relevant to the broader discussion, since Tolkien says that Men WILL be a part of the 2nd Great Music, and that each will understand their part in the greater Music, and therefore evil cannot arise again. It was part of the passage on the Gift, and therefore relevant to the discussion.

> My concern in the edits was to preserve a neutral point of view in the article. You're correct > that a certain amount of interpretation is inevitable in an article of literary criticism.

I suppose you were acting in the best interests of neutrality, but as I say, I am merely interpreting Tolkien's own writing on the role of Men in the Second Music, and since evil arose in the First Music due to inappropriate themes being woven in that were not in accord with the other aspects of the music, that in hte second Music where everyone knows their role, discord in the music, ie. evil, can therefore NOT arise... Perhaps I was overly cautious in saying it was my interpretation... its a straightforward generalization of Tolkien's text, and as I say, I have a brain, and I am not an idiot.

> around the sun"), and if there's a notable division among scholars, both sides should be presented > with appropriate attribution ("Most scientists believe that the earth is approximately 4.5 > billion years old, but a few religious scholars and biblical literalists believe that it is much > younger.")

As you have gathered, there is NO consensus, becuase there has been almost no discussion about this idea that I have been able to find on the net.

> I've been very long-winded here and probably said very little. The most important thing is to note > that I didn't mean to step on your toes, and was only operating out of a desire to improve the > encyclopedia. I assume good faith of you, and hope you can do the same of me. We can work together > with other editors to retain the relevant content on the Gift of Men page, and keep it consistent > with Wikipedia style guidelines.

Yes, we'll work together and improve it.

--SanjaySingh 07:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning tenses for Tolkien related articles

Hi, I saw that you reverted the article to present tense in the Samwise Gamgee article, which makes sense — because it is stated so in the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. But the Guide states that it "is a guideline, not a policy". However, the Manual of Style, which is a style guide as well, does not state that it is "not a policy", like it is stated so in the 'Guide to writing better articles'. Also, nowhere does it say in 'The Manual of Style' anything about requiring to write present tense in fiction, only in an advice guide on writing a better article. But even the MoS quotes that the guides "are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity", and "cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law". Meaning, that there can be exceptions. I think that there is a general concensus among Tolkien fans (who write the Tolkien related articles on Wikipedia) that for Tolkien related articles, past tense should be used — which is shown in this discussion. I hope you understand that I am not trying to attack you, and I see that you have a reasonable point as well, but I, as well as other Tolkien editors (others, not all, of course), think that there should be an exception for this case. —Mir l e n 16:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hah, thanks. You've done some good edits around here too — fixing up after my mistakes (like the Faramir page with the captions). Which reminds me, I wasn't sure if you were interested, but would you like to join Middle-earth WikiProject (we focus on anything Tolkien-related, not just M-E btw). The whole information is on one of our welcome templates {{TWwelcome}}, if you want a nutshell. Anyway, glad this was settled nicely — usually I have to get ready with a rebuttal :P —Mir l e n 23:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the quality and content of writing is superb (far more superb than what I can write as of now) — but I'm afraid it does have a bit of POV and individual interpretation. It's hard for Tolkien fans to write it in an encyclopedic way, instead as a Tolkien scholar (I myself received a constructive criticism from a fellow Tolkien editor about that) — so I can also see where the user is coming from. I hope he/she knows that it is not the writing nor the quality we are criticizing, it's the fact that it contains a Tolkien scholar's interpretation in a journal as opposed to writing an article with the facts in an encyclopedia. It's hard to see the fine line, especially when writing about a piece of literature (it's difficult not to insert your own interpretation), but perhaps you should suggest that if the interpretation is a concensus interpretation accepted by most Tolkien fans, then there should be a lot of references and notes supporting that generally-accepted interpretation. (If the argument gets deeper, then I would reccomend asking the view of CBD — he is more experienced and because he knows more in-depth about the policy than me, he would be a better judge of this conflict). —Mir l e n 00:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regeneration

"...there are those who call me... Tim?" —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Cleese would have made an excellent Doctor :) Tim! 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the work on Celebrity appearances in Doctor Who - saved me from doing it...Martpol 12:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter! (or whatever it is that you celebrate)

Happy Easter, Josiah! But even if you don't celebrate it (like me), you should still try the delicious chocolate! (Btw, how did the whole deal with the article/user work out?) —Mir l e n 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

No problem. Articles like that don't work if people don't keep an eye on them. And what's this about the new season of Doctor Who starting? Last year's episodes were a couple weeks behind on this side of the Atlantic; I guess they are this year too. Arctic Gnome 06:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future tv show

Sure, I don't care...I was asked to delete it because consensus had apparently been reached. Adam Bishop 15:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4th Doc image

Sorry about that....the image was deleted and there for a broken link was there so I deleted it. I forgot to mention it going there now to fix Aeon 04:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prob....I just joined the Doctor Who Wiki Project and started pitching in here and there. going to try for a few serious edits tomarrow. Aeon 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the image went but I couldn't find any evidence in the deletion log that it had been deleted so I re-uploaded it. —Wh o uk (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was a technical glitch. There's no evidence of the re-upload now that I can see, and on IRC the #wikipedia channel topic includes "image/math problems can be fixed by appending ?action=purge". —Wh o uk (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Josiah

I have a question concerning copyrights. On the V for Vendetta (film) talk, there was conversation that sparked earlier concerning bootlegs, etc. Is there a Wikipedia policy that relates to how one should speak about these topics? For example, downloading movies, viewing clips of copyrighted movies, etc. I know something like this would not be permissible on the actual articles, but what about the talks? I may be being excessivly cautious about this, but thought I'd ask anyways. On one had, if a person can use Wikipidia, they most certainly can use programs P2P downloaders and be aware of these topics. On the other hand, the talk is only 1 step away from the article itself. Cheers. --P-Chan 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for the advice that you gave earlier in regards to conversations on P2P sharing on the talks. Much appreciated.--P-Chan 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalistic science fiction

Hey, Josiah, I remember your words of encouragement during the edit wars on the Naturalistic science fiction article. Sadly, things haven't really changed there. I remember that you were an early major contributor to the article and also supported an NPOV criticisms section which I was trying to provide. Unfortunately, something like that section is going to come off as original research or POV to some no matter how I try to spin it. Problem is, there just are no outspoken fan gurus anymore (like Bjo Trimble was for Trek). You might be interested, however in a recent development from someone else who has an interesting opinion on this article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naturalistic science fiction Stay Well--- Mr. ATOZ 15:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]