User talk:Scm83x/archive2

The following discussion is archived from User talk:Scm83x. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Johntex\^talk 23:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have discussed date links before. I do not know if you have seen the discussion and votes at: new bot application. Voting may have ended, but I thought that you would be interested to see what other editors are saying on the same topic. bobblewik 11:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I don't know if you care Scm, but if you've been wondering what my gorgeous mug looks like I've uploaded a few pictures of me fencing. They're on display here. Staxringold 15:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] is a great diff with a great edit summary. Johntex\^talk 08:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a University of Texas at Austin WikiProject today. Checked what linked to it, noticed you had and therefore figured you'd be interested to know it's set up. jareha 21:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, your work on The West Wing has reached it's final step! Staxringold 21:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on West Wing! Johntex\^talk 02:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded! jareha ^(comments) 03:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scm, I would like to know if you would be interested in becoming an administrator? Obviously, your work here is top notch, and being an administrator would make it just a little easier for you to help out with the work you already do. It would be my honor to nominate you. Please let me know. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 03:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I would support his nomination if he accepts. I've come across a lot of his work and his dispute resolution skills are great. --BWD ^(talk) 18:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I could not support Scm as a nominee for administrator. --Bookofsecrets 18:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do you ever sleep?  :-) Waya sahoni 09:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, as usual and as expected you never know when to mind your own business. --Bookofsecrets 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please refrain from using the finger deal in your signature when posting on my talkpage. Thanks. --Bookofsecrets 13:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've never even heard an aggie call it the finger deal. Nice. Seriously, I think I still have this game on my Tivo. If I do, I'll snap a pic to upload. You never commented on the Bevo and the crystal football. Did you find it useful? It was taken before I got the Canon 350. Photos off tv are a little better with the canon (though of course, they're still photos off tv so that puts an upper bound on the quality). Johntex\^talk 00:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What ever gave you the idea that I'm an Aggie? I've only been to Texas once in my whole life, Dallas in 1998. It seems you think I'm into some sort of college rivalry deal. Well, I find college rivalries childish. I just find the "finger deal" silly and offensive. --Bookofsecrets 12:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harro Harro. I noticed your addition of the Melbourne 2006 images to your user page. As I'm sure you're aware, fair use images may not be placed on user pages. I wanted to let you know this so that you may remove them and replace them with free use alternatives. Also, check out my new picture and reference additions to Plano Senior High School. Thanks! — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 07:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, you got me! Nice work on Plano. WP:PR anyone?

• It has to be worth a try. Stuyvesant High School and Hopkins School are at FAC and PR respectively, so it's pretty busy for high schools, but people can usually lend some advice. Harro5 09:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't believe you weren't an admin already. Strong support, and best of luck with the nom. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 20:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm most definetly supporting your RFA, good luck with that! Second, congratulations against on The West Wing, it's nice to see such a well-written TV article on the main page (especially for me). My final question is related to that. Shouldn't we start adding information to U.S. presidential election, 2006 (The West Wing)? Currently it only has information on the nomination process and the dating issues, surely we have enough of the campaign (I believe Bruno said they were 6 weeks out last episode?) to start writing it up? Besides it being generally notable as the election article already exists, there are at least the debate, abortion positions, and the nuclear disaster to mention for their effect on the campaign trail. Staxringold 20:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a decent section to the article, please give it a review and edit/add however you see fit! Staxringold 04:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in setting up the gallery? I've sort of slacked off updating the portal as regularly as I should, but am not very good at settng up loops or anthing like that. Harro5 05:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• With regards to trying to knuckle down to do work, I'm balancing being an arm-chair addict watching the 2006 Commonwealth Games in my home town with trying to do some work in preparation for returning to school on Monday, so I share your pain :). But anyway, I'd love for you to set up the gallery; I'm interested to see how effective it is, and it would certainly be easier than my old method of finding a new pic for the portal to feature: trawling through school articles until I found a pic, and a decent one at that! And while you're probably more enticed by grasping the elusive prize that is the old mop and bucket - congratulations in advance for a successful RFA btw - you might be interested in an offer to share the role of running the portal with me. If it's not your cup of tea, that's OK, but the offer is there. Consider me your fall-back; the preverbial Florida State if you will (I know how Americans love college references). Anyway, I'm sure we'll talk again shortly. Harro5 07:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea with the message. I'll get around to it over the next day or so; it'll just be a standard one for all. So, we want good pics of schools (explicitly excluding logos or individual people like alumni, principals), focusing more on buildings or larger student communities. Does that sound about right. Harro5 08:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the question of fair use, perhaps we could begin by asking just for copyleft images to be added to a gallery, and then invite people to add links to fair use images on the gallery's talk page. That way we could gauge the number of copyleft images available, and not tie our hands too soon. Thoughts? (When you lift your head out of the books that is, no rush. I'm taking a 5min Wikipedia break!) Harro5 10:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I have a good reason to root for UCONN still (if you catch my drift). My bracket isn't completely busted yet. I'm not really a big WVU fan, but I wanted them to win the tourney, so when their fans would yell "WVU: National Champs! Whooo!" I could have replied with "Marshall: the National Champs are our bitch! Whooo!" but its not to be. youngamerican (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good article has been listed for deletion. Please vote to keep this template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25#Template:Good_article. The {{good article}} template places a small Good Article symbol () in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is a good article on Wikipedia. —RJN 14:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Francs2000 20:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Shyam ^(T/C) 21:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, enjoy the mop and bucket! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 21:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best of luck to you with your new privilages! You deserve it! Weatherman90 21:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Scm83x, good luck --Ugur Basak 21:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 01:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You deserve this! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What more can I say, except Congratulations and Good Luck! Oh, and let me know if I can ever be of assistance. Best, Johntex\^talk 17:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, congrats on your RfA. You certainly deserved it a long time ago. I investigated their site a couple of days ago and read their license carefully. If you read the license, it sounds like they are releasing everything under the GFDL that originated from wikipedia and everything subsequently modified that originated from wikipedia. What they are not releasing under the GFDL is anything originally authored by themselves.

• Any materials on this site which originate from Wikipedia, or content from Wikipedia which has subsequently been modified by the WikiGadugi Project, are released under the GFDL. Any new content authored on this wiki will remain solely the copyrighted works of the editors and authors who created them, and subject to their unique licensing terms.

As far as I can tell, that's perfectly legal. That means anything they modify that came from wikipedia is still licensed under the GFDL. Anything they author with 0% involvement from wikipedia is licensed under some yet to be defined licensing scheme. So I fully plan on merging any GFDL licensed material on wikigadugi.org into the wikipedia.
I wish them luck as long as they comply with the GFDL and don't steal anybody's hard work. There's no denying that both of them, Jeff in particular, are odd characters. So I'll keep an eye on the site. I don't want my work, or anyone else's, taken without the protections afforded under the GFDL. --BWD ^(talk) 14:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, congrats once more for your successful RFA! Second, sorry if the GA nomination for Plano Senior High School caught you off guard, I've been keeping an eye on it and nominated it to see if others felt similarly. Let me know if you want any help with that or anything else (and I'll let you know once I get the last couple details for Hopkins School and put it up for FAC). Staxringold 22:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you solved the problems I flagged up - why not put it back on the nominations page (with a bracketed note saying "renominated after all suggested improvements implemented" or suchlike, perhaps)? I'm sure it'll get passed as soon as someone else spots it - I'm loathe to pass it myself since in a sense I have now been involved with the article! (Obviously, not very much - I think the biggest thing I did was put in a by-county categorization as well as flag up a fair use issue - but sometimes if I review an article I make suggestions for structural or other changes that therefore make me a somewhat interested party, so I think in general it's healthier for impartiality of process if I don't re-review articles I've already reviewed. Besides that, I'd look really unhelpful if on second reading I found additional reasons to deny GA status, and a fresh pair of eyes looking over the article really can't be a bad thing!) Good luck with it :) TheGrappler 22:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in the block and it wasn't blocked. We blocked for the same amount of time so it will be ok. If the second block is shorter than the first it will cancel the longer block. Bad usernames will always be indefinite. On ips and ordinary user names it's always a good idea to look. Sometimes it takes the servers a short time to pick it up.--Dakota ~ ° 02:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scm! You gave me so much early advice on this article, and I have nominated it as an FAC once again. I hope the article is good enough to garner your support! Staxringold 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits marked dab The West Wing (TV series) using AWB do not appear to be useful to me. The West Wing (television) redirects to The West Wing (TV series) already; there is no "ambiguity" that I can see. See also Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. --TreyHarris 23:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(moved the conversation here)

A couple things. First, "editing redricet link" is also called "dabbing", so in the future you can say "dab article" in the edit summary and that will make things clearer. Also, I do not believe that the capitalization of the articles that you moved in standard. The articles should have capitals only where required per WP:MoS. Therefore, they should be List of politicians on The West Wing and List of characters on The West Wing. They should be moved posthaste. I'll let you take care of that. Thanks. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 19:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily.

After reading the Manual of style, and specifically this page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), at the bottom it gives book titles as examples...

And as I *did* make sure all the redirect pages were accurate, the naming convention I used *should* be considered accurate...

Jc37 19:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book titles are not relevant to this article. The capitalization issue concerns Characters and Politicians, neither of which should be capitalized per "Convention: Unless the term you wish to create a page for is a proper noun, do not capitalize second and subsequent words." I have made the appropriate moves. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 19:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't read the article. Here's a paste:

"Therefore, although the Wikipedia search engine does not lend itself to the style of capitalization recommended for use in titles by authoritative manuals of style (e.g., Chicago Manual of Style, Fowler's Modern English Usage (Third edition), and Oxford Manual of Style), the "work around" described in the last bulleted item in the second paragraph of this subsection ("Case sensitivity and searching") can be implemented if one wants the capitalization of that article to conform to conventional standards."

Which I followed through on.

However, it's rather pointless to be involved in an edit war over something like this (something that is subjective, and is not "set in stone" as is also said in the article(s)). So do as you wish. Feel free to edit the many redirect pages as well (as I did for the change I made).

Also, for future reference, you might consider giving the reason for the move/redirects (such as "R from alternate name") as you are directed to do under redirects.

Have a great day : ) Jc37 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think you misunderstood the "R from alternate name" comment, I think... You put it between two pair of braces on the same line as the REDIRECT text while editing a redirect page, after the move has been accomplished. Wikipedia:Redirect would be a good place to start : ) Jc37 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggested, I gave a reason for the move/redirect as you suggested above. I did not feel it necessary to add the {{R from alternate name}} tag because anyone questioning my reasoning could look at the page history. Additionally, this is not the appropriate tag to add in this case. The appropriate tag would be {{R from other capitalisation}}. This was a complex situation that was very confusing to follow because there may have been at least one copy/paste move involved. I am glad that the situation is ended amicably. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I'm confused : )

a.) I think you're right in that your move would have been "R from other caps". At the time, I was thinking of my original move which I believe was "R from alt name".

b.) I don't understand how you can, on one hand, follow (at least part of the) directions about caps, and on the other, feel you can ignore Wikipedia:Redirect.

In any case, I added it to the specific move you made. So no need to further concern ourselves with it.

Happy, positive editing : )

Jc37 15:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits marked dab The West Wing (TV series) using AWB do not appear to be useful to me. The West Wing (television) redirects to The West Wing (TV series) already; there is no "ambiguity" that I can see. See also Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. --TreyHarris 23:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your edits to the multitude of West Wing pages around the West Wing, I do not think that edits to the talk page of The West Wing article are at all necessary. There is zero precedent for this kind of reorganization, and it really only makes the talk page more confusing for experienced users who are used to looking at the very bottom for more recent discussion. Also, there is no reason to expect every one who wants to make a comment on the talk page to follow these guidelines that you have set up. The previous version is fine. Please take a look at any other talk page on the Wikipedia and you will see exactly what the previous version of the West Wing page was: a chronological discussion with no subject order. I am going to revert these changes. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 17:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually, no that's not true..

[Main Page Discussion]

Just for example.

If you want more examples, then I can find them for you, I suppose.

However, I am more concerned with the statement: "I appreciate". While I thank you for the positive comment, it makes me concerned that while you have a right to be proud that the main WW page was a featured article, you are straying into:[[2]]

and even if not you might want to read this: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and this: Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

Nothing I did on the talk page was vandalism. Quite the contrary.

If you continue this line, I think perhaps we should go trhough arbitration? Jc37 17:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing you of vandalism. I am saying that the change was unnecessary and confusing. The first link that you provided does not go anywhere, so I am not sure at the moment what section you are referencing. I would like to show you some talk pages that follow the style of The West Wing, as it had been:

Arrested Development · James T. Aubrey, Jr. · Batman · BBC television drama · Blackface · Blade Runner · Humphrey Bogart · Captain Marvel (DC Comics) · Casablanca (film) · Cheers · Coronation Street · Dalek · Dawson's Creek · George Washington Dixon · Doctor Who · Doctor Who missing episodes · Karen Dotrice · Felix the Cat · Henry Fonda · Jim Henson · Katie Holmes · Vivien Leigh · Lindsay Lohan · Memory Alpha · Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme) · Sydney Newman · November (film) · Our Friends in the North · Our Gang · The Quatermass Experiment · Quatermass and the Pit · Red vs Blue · Spoo · Julia Stiles · KaDee Strickland · Superman · Sunset Blvd. (1950 film) · Sharon Tate · TARDIS · Thunderball · Uma Thurman · Triumph of the Will · The West Wing (television) · WGA screenwriting credit system

This being the list of every Featured article in the same category as The West Wing. As you will see, every talk page is organized this way.

This being said, I would suggest the following. If you want to reorganize the page, do so. Then, archive it and place a note at the top of the page warning potential viewers that the content is organized by topic and not date. I am worried about confusing people,and I think this would stem that tide.

Finally, I think for some reason you have a view that I'm a bad person because I don't agree with you on somethings. Our previous discussion has been civil and I wanted to remind you that you have no reason to assume that an Arbitration case is necessary. I am perfectly willing to discuss this with you. In the future, when dealing with other editors, remember that saying things like that and making accusations of WP:OWN will make people in to your mortal enemies! Just watch what you say out loud ;-). Thanks. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 17:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done something that I think is a great compromise. I have moved your readable version of the talk page to archive1 (as is suggested at the talk page guidelines) and I have left the last few most-recent comments on the live talk page. This way, it is easier to read old comments, but also simple for experienced users to comment on the article. We should consider archiving more often so that this new system might be implemented more effectively. Thanks. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 18:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Each question in turn:

As for the main page example, it was to show that sections of a talk page could be by topic, and yet be chonological.

The whole point of the "equal sign" headers is to reduce confusion, not cause it.

And I placed "general comments and questions" at the bottom so that people could add general comments, and if wanted, some future editor could sort it into it's category. the comments haven't changed, just their grouping.

The encyclopedia itself has just such groupings, else we would have a single page for the whole of the encyclopedia. The difference here is that many pages have many sub-headings, so there are many varied topics to comment on. What I did was place the comments as readable "at a glance". Just as we are wont to do in articles themselves.

The "top down" chonology is not so much a precedent as it is just how it happens, unless some editor organizes it (the main page example above, for example).

As for archiving, I find that many (but not all - character synopsis comments became outdated when they were removed) of the comments should be retained, because we face the EXACT SAME changes by editors, which have an ongoing concensus discussion. If someone in the future wants to delete Yes, Minister, they can find reasons to keep it fairly quickly on the talk page, rather than scrolling down through every discussion. (Again, hence the "equal sign" method of organization). An excited editor is not likely to spend time reading every item on the talk page. (We won't even go into the lack of clarity each person chose as their own comment's subject header : )

Honestly, I would suggest that someone who has time should go through and organize the talk pages of all those you showed as examples. For all the reasons above.

And finally, whether I find you a "bad person" (chuckle). Not in the least.

My opinion was/is that you've done a tremendous job at watching the main West Wing page. I just have been noticing that in your responses to people, at times you have seemed rather "heavy handed" in things that are rather subjective (pedeconferencing, for example).

So I thought I would bring that to your attention. Arbitration (with a ? at the end) was just a suggested option for finding a positive outcome, if we didn't/don't find a resolution amongst ourselves.

(If I thought you couldn't "handle it", do you think I would have said so in the way I did? : )

As for mortal enemies... Life is just a little bit bigger than worrying about who hates me. I'm here to edit and contribute to wikipedia. It's fun, and I feel it's personally rewarding. Which I presume is the same reason you, and nearly every other editor, are here.

Jc37 18:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your response and I understand now that you know exactly what you're doing. There have been (as you saw) issues with fancrufters coming in and adding irrelevant info and other people even adding spoilers to the article. I see now that you are really a great quality contributor with a great grasp of policy.

I have found that, so far, my greatest friends on the Wikipedia have been people that I disagreed with at first. I hope that you will become one of those people in the near future. Please go ahead and make appropriate changes to the West Wing talk page. I understand your reasoning much better now. If you have any questions or need an admin help, I'm always here to lend a hand. Thanks so much! — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 18:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is archived from User talk:Scm83x. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.