User talk:Trlkly/archive

Welcome

Hello, Trlkly/archive, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

---

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
• If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language
• Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

Happy editing!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Autosigner

Hi! I was just wondering what it is you hate about the "autosigner". It's nothing more than a labour-saving device – writing four tildes is simply easier and quicker than writing out your name, the date and the time etc. And, what's more, it makes your username clickable, so people can go straight to your talk-page without having to copy and paste. What's wrong with that? I agree with your point on the IPA talk page by the way. garik 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I should have been more specific with my terminology. What I hate is the bot that goes around signing previously unsigned posts. "The previously unsigned comment was written by <X>" just sounds elitist to me. And useless. Why can't it just sign it normally so that nobody has to use the tildes? Is it really necessary to point out who is a newb or just plain forgetful?

As you can see from that comment (which has been unsigned for almost a year, and which I've just had to mark as unsigned myself), the bot doesn't always notice unsigned comments, and can certainly take more than a couple of hours to react, so we couldn't trust it to keep a fast conversation coherently annotated.

The "previously unsigned" line is good for context; if someone deliberately posts a comment without a signature, it'd be misleading to make it look as if they had signed it, themselves. And it's important to remind people to use the tilde, rather than suggesting that a bot will always catch them in future. --McGeddon (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your autosign, per the discussion on your own user_talk. And I am intentionally not signing this comment. It's my user_talk, it should be obvious. And if it isn't, there's always the "History" button.

Sinebot is using the default {{unsigned}} template, and it's completely standard practice for human editors to use it as well, to help make the flow of talk pages more readable. If somebody fails to sign a comment, it's unclear as to who said it, particularly if another editor adds a comment directly afterwards (the previous paragraph, for example, isn't me talking). I'm not doing anything unusual to prove a point, here; thousands of editors use the {{unsigned}} template every day, it's just that Sinebot often gets there first.

If you'd prefer to see a different wording, you should bring this up on the template's talk page. I'm not sure I've seen a wiki automatically signing comments (it seems like you'd get false positives when you were just editing a comment or adding a template), but if you want to suggest it, head over to the village pump.

I'll try to remember to not to use this template on your comments in the future. --McGeddon (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like you can tell Sinebot never to sign your comments. You will get other editors applying the same template to your unsigned comments, though - as I say, this is completely standard behaviour, and no editor would think to check someone's user page before doing so. --McGeddon (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that came across as a dig, then - I wasn't ignoring your comment about the {{unsigned}} template, I just read it as a criticism of a necessary evil.

Given that you'll get most of your {{unsigned}} templates from passing strangers who'll never see you again, I don't think you'll gain anything by actively admonishing them for it on their talk pages - you might as well just quietly delete the template and explain in the edit summary. --McGeddon (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Smallville

You might want to look at the bottom of the page, as the area you left your comment in has not been active in awhile. At the bottom, in the "merge" section there is a current debate. As for Stargate, I'll refer to a common rebuttle that is used here on Wiki, two wrongs don't make a right. I'll pick a Stargate episode at random, it happens to be the first episode of season 3, Into the Fire (Stargate SG-1). This is nothing but a plot. This violates 2 things, and they are both copyrights. The first copyright it violates is the episode itself, because you cannot simply write up a plot, especially not one that descriptive, and have nothing encyclopedic around it. That amounts to theft (see replicating copyrighted material). What that says is Wikipedia will provide a substitution for watching episodes, for free. The other thing is that, without critical commentary, the use of that image is a violation of copyright (see non-free image criteria). I'm not saying that no episodes deserve their own article (see my edit for the Smallville pilot), just that 130+ episode do not deserve their own page. The only arguments I've ever come across for this debate have always been either "the season pages will be too long" or "other articles do it that way". As I said in the current debate, we don't know how long the season pages will be because no one lets them actually develop. We don't research any real-world context for them, and don't try and keep plot summaries in check from becoming grossly negligent to copyrights.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm indifferent. It's an old discussion. We've had debates on this before, and Peregrine opts to try different Smallville pages to announce his attempt to create an article for every episode, even after there was clear consensus that he shouldn't. What I would like is if you would take a look at the current discussion (titled "Merge"). Not only am I calling for a merger of all (but the pilot episode, for the time beind) episodes back into the season pages, but I've proposed a new format (which you can find by clicking the link that I supplied in the discussion) for the season pages that will keep the plots in-check and provide production information and reception information for all the episodes that do not have enough to support themselves in their own articles. I explain the difference between what the size of an article actually is, and what you see when you click the edit screen. I've helped the pilot episode find the substance it needs to actually be stable (i'm withholding the reception section so that I can develop it into good prose), but there are 21 episodes in season 1, and from the source that I'm using, only about 2-4 will actually support an entire article by themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll look forward to your criticism when you return, but as far as Stargate goes, it's also on their website. That doesn't change the fact that it violates Wiki's policy on plots, Notability guidelines and the idea behind when an article should be created. Anyway, I won't keep you from getting your rest any further.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't going to attack SG. First, I don't watch SG, so I would never really be able to help it. I believe that the best help you can give is when you are familiar with the topic (which some people think otherwise, but if you set aside any fanboy opinions then it can help); I think that you should always try and see if you can help the article first. Second, the debate link I gave you clearly says "Avoid massive AfDs". You could do it, but you'll probably piss off more people, plus they are generally inaffective because of the "fanboys" that protect the pages. People generally look over a lot of AfD nominations in that huge list that grows day by day, so the people that generally "vote" are the ones that happen to monitor the pages regularly. That's why I went to the merger, and left notes on WP:TV and the Controversial merger page. I still haven't gotten that much response, because the "entertainment" community are not really that respected in the Wiki world. Our articles are generally seen as not worthy to be on Wiki.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Heck no. I find Wiki valuable on an academic level, but I take it all with a grain of salt and immediately look for a footnote at the end of the sentence or paragraph so that I can use that as a source (if it's reliable).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, also I think they could care less about certain films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I finally finished the work on the season page. Take a look and tell me what you think. It needs a good copyedit for wordiness and word choices, but that's easy to find if the page is implented into the mainspace.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"User-colorable"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's modeled after the List of Smallville episodes table, which is modeled after each of the DVD box sets. If they don't like that color, then I shoot for plain neutral coloring.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your message at my talk page. I've responded to you there.Ferrylodge 06:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Angry?

Who says I'm angry? That would give these ... entities power over me. If I ever catch myself feeling aggravated/annoyed, I simply catch myself and say, "Don't." It's that simple.

And I never was "permablocked." I haven't/never really kept track of any of all that, but I'm assuming that whatever block you're referring to expired months ago. I just haven't bothered to change my user page since, well, forever.

I have absolutely no desire to be an administrator -- never did. And there's no way I could or would pretend to be anything other than what I am. What you read is what you get. No subterfuge, no sockpuppets, no simpering. I'm pretty much in your face. What can I say? To know me is to love me. ;) Bless. dee.