User talk:Scm83x/archive3

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.

Wow! You've been doing a lot of work over the past few hours. However, as with the last person who commented here, I do not believe that the changes are necessary. There is no reason that I can find to make these changes. Many of the titles are becoming unwiedly and long. Please stop making these changes unilaterally and discuss them on the main talk page of The West Wing. On Wikipedia, we like to do things by consensus. Let's make sure we have one before we make all of these changes. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing it right now on his talk page, please feel free to join in  : ) -Jc37

- confused...

• 1.) as shown above, you were welcome to join in the conversation, but you didn't do so?
• 2.) We resolved the issue amicably.
• 3.) there is precedent shown on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). which *is* policy?
• 4.) I'm not understanding why a change to standardization here is a "bad thing". It's not only following the rules, it's a "good thing" for any encyclopedia.
• 5.) what happened to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages?

-Jc37 01:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And rather than respond, you're having your friend undo my work of the last several hours? How is that attempting to discuss or find a concensus?

I patiently await your response. - Jc37 02:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to give details on why you believe this is copyrighted and not my work? Noles1984 16:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You are correct. Delete as prescribed. Noles1984 17:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God, you don't waste any time, do you? Noles1984 17:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scm83x wrote: Since you agree the images are not allowed, can you please mark them with the template {{db-author}} so that they may be deleted immediately? Be sure to also mark Image:Fabiola Romero.jpg. Thank you. — Scm83x hook 'em 18:00, 5 April 2006

Thank you for the assist. At least you're more cordial and explain more than another Adm. I'm aware of. Noles1984 15:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should consider protecting this guy's talkpage as well; that's where he's making most of his personal attacks (and is basically his only outlet for vandalism, after the block). Thanks. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks for the block. (Another admin did it right before you as well, but for 48 hours rather than 24.) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sprotected weight loss ... keep your eyes open for where it goes next. Thanks for your help! Antandrus (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it interesting that an article that you seem to keep an eye on has (well, had) this exact same situation. 卫weizhe哲 02:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity, that Big XII logo appears to be in violation as well. Under this rule, it would seem that almost every college/athletic conference-related template is in violation... I almost think that if you can justify the logo being on every page that the template is on, it almost seems as though it isn't violating the spirit of the rule. You're the administrator though, I suppose. Just realize that there are about 100 other college templates that violate this rule. 卫weizhe哲 02:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the stupid newbee q, but I noticed you removed one of my duplicate warnings; I thus gather it shouldn't go on both, but if I'm the first person to add a warning, should I put it on the user page or the discussion page? I.e., is there a Wiki standard? Thanks! Dragonbones 04:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You, Rebelguys2, and I have been in a bit of a discussion with Jc37 for a while now regarding the necessity of the "(TV series)" notation on the List of politicians on The West Wing (TV series) and List of characters on The West Wing (TV series). Jc37 still maintains his/her position, but tonight he/she has agreed to allow to the pages to move back to List of politicians on The West Wing, etc. (see User_talk:Jc37/TWW_(archive-1)#Just_to_clarify.._.28West_Wing_pages.29 for details)

I would move the pages myself, but for some reason the system is telling me that I need an administrator. Since you're an administrator, I was hoping I could ask for your help. We just need to move List of politicians on The West Wing (TV series) to List of politicians on The West Wing and List of characters on The West Wing (TV series) to List of characters on The West Wing (as well as, of course, their respective talk pages).

I've asked Jc37 for help in fixing any internal links to those pages.

Also, I think we should include a little statement on the talk pages of both articles explaining why Jc37 made the initial changes and why we moved it back. I've drafted the following message, which Jc37 approves of:

"I have removed the (TV series) notation from this article. Jc37 added the (TV series) notation because he/she felt that these articles should be 'standardized' with the main West Wing article (which carries the (TV series) notation to disambiguate it from the actual West Wing of the White House), according to his/her reading of current convention. Scm83x, Rebelguys2, and I disagreed with him, saying that we feel the (TV series) notation should only be on main articles about TV shows and that, too, only for disambiguation purposes. In this instance, we felt that the (TV series) notation was serving neither purpose, as it was not disambiguating and it was not on the main West Wing article. After much discussion, Jc37, while maintaining his/her position, agreed to the article name change. Therefore, I have moved it so that it no longer has the (TV series) notation. I would appreciate any help anybody could provide in correcting pages that link to this article."

With that, this issue should now come to a close.

--Hnsampat 02:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Welcome to VandalProof== Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your work at User:David Kernow/Andrew Scott Waugh while scanning for user page vandalism. The guy looks to be a little known but very interesting character of history! I wanted to make sure that you knew that new articles are eligible for inclusion on the main page if they are nominated at Template talk:Did you know. I hope to see a fact about Mr. Waugh there very soon! Let me know if you have any questions. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement! Waugh is one of a number of nineteenth-century figures about whom I'm gradually compiling stubs or unexpanded articles. As I guess you know, making some attempt to cross-check and/or include basic information from sources beyond the internet takes time, but I think I've done about as much as I can afford on Waugh, so I'll move his stub into the encyclopedia soon. Best wishes, David Kernow 04:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Facebook, you said you felt the section about pop culture should be removed (again). I removed it and others have commented here. With this development, you may wish to review your vote. —L1AM (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting this article after I avolitionally recreated it. Whilst I was PRODding (I think speedy was likely appropriate in the first instance, but, inasmuch as there seemed to be an assertion of notability, however dubious, I thought PROD the way to go), the article was speedily deleted, and, so, my PROD recreated the article. As I was retagging for speedy, you deleted it, and I nearly recreated it again with my {{db-empty}} tag; thanks much in any case for the celerity with which you dealt with my error. Joe 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scm, haven't seen you on AIM in a while and have a bunch of things to say. First off, I have decided on UConn, and we're totally gonna kick UT's arse at basketball. :D (Pre-emptive school pride) Second, congrats on sheparding Plano through a well-run PR, it seems to have gone quiet and will probably be closed soon and be ready for an FAC run (which it should pass handily). Third I wanted to say "Whoohoo yeehaw doggydog!" as Cheers has been featured on the main page today. That brings me to my final question: We've both had main page featured TV articles, we'll surely soon both have featured school articles under our belts, what shall we do next? A celebrity, university, what? We work well together and give handy advice on AIM, and if we're both working on the same thing it compounds the advice more usefully. Staxringold 02:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the photo posted on the Liberty ship pages is not a Liberty. It is a Type T2-SE-A1. Liberty ships were EC2-S-C1 Types. The photo should be posted on the T2 tanker page. furthermore, the Schenectady broke in half shortly after being launched, while she was being towed to the outfitting dock. While the cause was brittle fracture, the water temperature had nothing to do with the break. Regards Oldfarm 15:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to help out by starting some articles for our Big-12 friends. Johntex\^talk 01:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texas!!! [1] Johntex\^talk 23:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be great to get him to FA status. From AfD to GA to FA. That would be awesome. I guess the first step would be to address the constructive criticism from the GA. Johntex\^talk 23:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea as well. You mentioned you might be able to swing by his office to get more info. Do you have time to do that? It could be really helpful if he has some articles on other projects he has done. I e-mailed him once but never got a reply. Johntex\^talk 23:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Cedric Griffin - seems ripe for DYK - don't you think? Johntex\^talk 00:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes - that's what I meant. I just added a photo. (fair use - so can't go on main page). It will be no trouble to find enough info to destub. [2], [3]... Johntex\^talk 00:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert of User:Bozojones - have you looked at his other contributions? He seems well-intentioned, but he is actually drawing his own logos. He also uploaded one image under {{somewebsite}}. Another one is labeled GFDL - interesting. I've done some expansion on Cedric Benson. I think our DYK could be that he is the first (only?) UT player to return a blocked field goal for a touchdown. By the way - go to bed!! Johntex\^talk 10:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "[The article 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) ] includes too many fair use pictures. These should be removed. If no one familiar with the article does it soon, I will take care of it myself. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define too many? And who are you to make this decision. If you were noticing, I am the one who inserted the pictures you are refering to. I don't this it TOO MUCH. -- User:Robeykr

I have responded at the talk page where the discussion originated. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today you did "removing excess of fair use pictures, {{cleanupdate}} and {{split}}: this article needs help"

I removed the excess yesterday! What is your problem now? You want to start an edit war? I am reverting the article to restore the remaining images from my edit yesterday. There is such a thing as moderation. What I left was/is reasonable. SO KNOK IT OFF!

You call this ([[4]]) excess?

-- User:Robeykr speak your mind

you said: rv to non-fair use violation version, please consider reading fair use criteria, discussing before reverting, and being civil.

I don't think that you are grasping the concepts of discussion and fair use policy. The discussion is not over when one party says it is over. Wikipedia is run through consensus. Please respond to my comments on the talk page here before reverting yet again. Also, again, I ask you to check out Wikipedia fair use criteria, especially point #3. You are fighting a losing battle, as it has been previously decided that continuing fair use violations are grounds for punitive action. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also consider WP:3RR before making any more changes to the article. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed. Try taking your own one party advice: "The discussion is not over when one party says it is over." And I did as you asked, and it was not enough! Who the @#! do you think you are hipocrite? We DID discuss it. reverting. -- Jason Palpatine 23:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are an administrator on this site. As a descendant of mine would put it -- fascinating. I find it difficult to belive that I am having this discussion with someone who wasn't even around whe I first saw the movie in the ceinerama theater back in 1968.

OK -- so, you consider the article in its current form still excessive. Why? -- and don't even think of throwing that policy lingo at me. The spirit of the rules and the letter are not the same thing. 2001 is one of the most complicated films in the history of cinema. Photo correlaton

-- given the fact that the film is mostly a visual experirence -- is a must in any article about it.  Most articles about 2001 at the time of its release contained more than a dozen or more images from every act in the film -- The apes and the monolith, the journey to the moon, TMA-1, the Discvery Mission, Boman's confrontation with HAL, the moons of Jupiter, even the hotel room sequence!  

I felt/feel that there should be more than the simple one-shot desert of images as the article originally was and you are trying to enforce.

You talk about discussion, yet you demanded an immediate reduction; and when I deliver, you further sterillize the article. It is said that too much of anything, even a good thing, is not a good thing. I may have, in the original final edit before you started this, over done it, but it can also be said that too little of anything, even a good thing, is not a good thing. I belive the version you are postulating is too little.

An all text article -- or predominantly text -- does not do justice to this film. In addition, you removed an number of correlated images from elswhere in the article. Why did you delete the image from People Are Alike All Over? It corrleated with the theme of the film in the trivia section. The Mars is Heaven correlation was even reported in the original Newsweek review of the movie.

I've printed out both of our recent versions of the article. The difference is only 3 pages. The images that remain in mine do NOT overwhelm the article. Yours, on the other hand, seems a little banal.

You want to have people discuss this before any action is taken? I belive I originally asked for such a discussion and the reply from you and one other was swift. You are unliaterally forcing deletions here without anyone else's feedback. I did NOT have to do those edits yesterday, but I did. I even got a thank-you on my talk page.

So lets hear from the others before this goes any further. Or can't you wait a week, like I asked? -- User:Robeykr speak your mind

You and one other do not a majority make Jason Palpatine 03:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of this I am aware, however, you do not constitute a majority either, so please discuss changes before reverting and accusing other users of malintent. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? I agree with Maury Markowitz (talk · contribs) on all points. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 02:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you said "who is we?" Let's see, this article has been in the enlarged format even prior to my edits during the past month. Others created the article in its extended form before I came along. So who's we? I don't see much in the way of any majority speaking out here. One voice angainst another. I can count the number of "oposing opinions" here in one breath. I see no vast majority speaking here.

And you have not offered a rebuttal to any of the points I have listed here.

Jason Palpatine 03:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what Maury is objecting to (and I agree with) is what is called original research. Put very simply, Wikipedia policy on original research is that:

"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."

In the context of this article, statements such as "He was not totally unprepared for this..." and "the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other" cannot simply come from the head of the user writing it. They must first be written in a reputable verifiable source, such as a film review or critique. Wikipedia is not the place to write lengthy stylistic plot analyses for films. Those things are more suited for personal webpages. Wikipedia is simply not a publisher of original thought. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the material did NOT come out of my head -- but your copyright policies do demand that I use my own words! There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it. For sources:

1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat
2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker
3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction)
4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke)
5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony
6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film)
7. And the jewel of my collection the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child!
8. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010

in chapters 37 and 38 of 2001:

ch. 37 --

It is shown that for three million years, this monolith had been on Japetus, waiting to be discovered. It was left behind as part of an experiment conducted by this extra- terrestrial civilization. The originators of the experiment had traveled the universe, trying to encourage the development of life wherever they found it. As they had an entire Universe to explore and cultivate, they could not stay around Earth and watch to see what developed. Earth was only one of many worlds on which they had attempted to push along the evolutionary process. These beings had, themselves, long evolved. First, they had outgrown their bodies of flesh and, having learned to store their brains in machines of metal and plastic. Ultimately, they learned to store their thoughts in light and freed themselves from all matter and time.

"Now the long wait was ending. On yet Another world, intelligence had been born and was escaping from its planetary cradle. An ancient experiment was about to reach its climax.”

Ch 38 --

“For weeks as it stared forever Sunward with its strange senses, the [monolith] had watched the approaching ship. Its makers had prepared it for many things and this was one of them. It recognized what was climbing yp toward it from the warm heart of the Solar System.

“It observed, and noted, and took no action, as the visitor checked its speed with jets of incandescent gas. Presently it felt the gentle touch of radiations, trying to probe its secrets. And still it did nothing.

“There was a long pause, then, before it observed that something was falling down toward it from the orbiting ship. It searched its memories, and the logic circuits made their decisions, according to the orders given them long ago.”

Queen to Bishop 3

Your move. -- Jason Palpatine 05:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC) speak your mind[reply]

Please cite these sources in the article. Additionally, keep in mind that this article is about the movie and not the book, so quoting the novel is inaccurate. Finally, I still agree with Maury that most of this content is more suited to be somewhere other than Wikipedia. Consider [5] or [6]. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 05:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The film and the novel do correlate -- though it is only one of the souces I used -- I consider it the most suited for quotation. Coonsider the quotation in the article about Bowman's arrival in the hotel room -- I didn't insert that one. The novel is a parralel to the movie. Jason Palpatine 05:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you m User talk:Robeykr; 00:52 . . Scm83x (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Robeykr (talk) to last version by Scm83x) !!!!!!!

NOW WHAT?!?! -- Jason Palpatine 04:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:Durin/Removal of fair use images for an explanation of what I did and why. — Scm83x hook 'em 05:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Been there. Read it. And your point is....? -- Jason Palpatine 05:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. point taken -- i think.

Sonce we're on the subject, out of curiosity, why didn't you also delete the following from my page?

thumb|350px|Mort the Lemur -- note short, rounded ears and a white stripe on his nose.

thumb|250px|The real thing for comparison -- note short, rounded ears and a white stripe on its nose

Just curious. -- Jason Palpatine 05:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, yowza, looking at your talk page above this it looks like you've had some exciting times on Wikipedia recently.. :p I'm working on Dog Day Afternoon and any advice you have would be appreciated. I've also posed a question on Talk:Josiah Bartlet that maybe you can answer. Staxringold 12:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were not meant for testing. They represented neutral points of view because they were facts about TAMS. For example, why revert one of my changes that states that students with a GPA less than a 3.0 will be "asked" to leave TAMS. It is clear that the rules "require" that they leave TAMS, there is no asking euphemism involved. The use of "asking" as a euphemism represents less of a neutral viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.242.11 (talk • contribs)

Do you know about this: User:Cyde/Ref converter. It is very cool. It automatically converts references into <ref></ref> style. Johntex\^talk 16:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete

After reviewing your link about NPOV, it only seems to support my edits to the page. And you deleting my posts rather than editing them to make them NPOV in your opinion, seems like an abuse of a stretched NPOV to meet your criteria to maintain the currently biased TAMS page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contribute (talk • contribs)

I must have been still half asleep. (It's early morning where I am.) I would have blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, based on contribs, but I looked at all the numbers in the user name (even though they had not dots between them) and thought it was just an IP. I'm normally more alert than that! Thanks for being more awake than I was! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 07:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Fair Use claim is made for the display of Tulane's shield on the User:Tulane userbox. Explicit permission was granted for using the shield on Wikipedian's user pages by the Vice-President of University Relations. This is explained at Template Talk:User Tulane and the permission can be found at User:Dystopos/Tulane Shield. --Dystopos 19:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this prospect likely in the near future? High school articles on Wikipedia are just soaring at present: Hopkins School will soon be the main page FA, Stuyvesant High School is looking good as a future Good Article Collaboration of the week, and Plano is a good article highly praised in that nom and on peer review. Now is the best time to capitalise on this momentum, and hopefully you've got the time needed to handle an FAC. Keep me informed! Harro5 23:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a stellar article, but then we already knew that. But, there was no great opposition or problems coming out of the peer review or the GA nom, and I think it's time to see what the community thinks. Staxringold, Bishonen, myself and you have all praised the article, and we've all been involved in creating featured articles in the past, so we know what's expected. I think we'd probably all agree an FAC is the logical next step for Plano, as it would otherwise be difficult to get wider feedback. Just be aware that there are some pretty anti-school people on Wikipedia who tend to get stuck in about supposed "advertising/promotion" in the text (at least that came out with Caulfield, and to an extent, Hopkins), but that shouldn't be an issue here. Harro5 08:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just stick my head in quickly, say hiya Scm, and agree that an FAC is the next step. You've been through every step WP offers to improve the article so I don't think anything major is missing, and any minor issues that happen to crop up can be fixed in-candidacy. Staxringold 15:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that due to the way that the blocking mechanism works the shorter block (48 hours) will cancel out the longer block when it expires. The way to avoid this is to unblock and reblock which will cancel out the existing blocks so that only the in this case indefinite block stands and so there won't be a block conflict. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors (counting yourself) have changed the article to reflect smaller image size. I always have allowed others to edit my work. Thank you. However, I do not belive it should be necessary for the images to be viewed using a microscope. Saracasxim aside, I consider the sizes implemented in the alteration TOO small. I recently tried to compromise with a different redused setting. I will be chinking the article next -- and I will revert it again if the images have been shrunk again. I am not being unreasonable. But the sizes you are imposing is too little.

Hi there! I just thought I'd drop by and let you know Harro has listed me at RFA, and given the amount of contact we had between TWW, Cheers, Hopkins, and Plano I hope you'll put up a vote. Either way, thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for DCing yesterday, my connection is still pretty crappy. Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:25, 30 May 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.