User talk:Khaosworks/Archive8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:45, 27 November 2006

Wikimood

[purge]	[edit]

This is my talk page. I will usually reply to comments (if needed) on the respective user talk pages. I reserve the right to delete any purely abusive, unsigned or anon IP comments. Thank you.

Use this link to add a new topic

Older discussions at Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4, Archive5, Archive6, Archive7

Re: Benny audios

Thanks for letting me know - I'll go back and sort the one I've done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edgrainger (talk • contribs) .

Day One

What are we to call that alien in Day One, and where do we put it under?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know but all I am asking is what name should it be under (Gasous creature?)--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 14:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack image

Hi, sorry to sound like a jerk but could i please ask for you to use the "Upload a new version" feature for the jack harkness image as i have a pretty good upload log and i really hte getting redlinks in it, if you dont want to then ill accept that. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. well it doesnt overly bother me its just i have a pretty good upload log in my mind and so i hate it when a file gets orphaned and deleted (as the link in my upload log goes red you see) - but sure you can delete the one i uploaded now so OrphanBot dosnt "spam" me, hehe. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who Villains

Should that not change to "Whoniverse Villains"?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 11:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Changes (Torchwood)

While I can understand your fair use rationale of one image per article, I cannot understand why you didn't simply leave one of the images I had previously uploaded. It was extremely rude of you to undermine another editor's work and replace it with your own. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of your opinion, of course, because no one image can adequately illusrate an entire episode and to assume that you have the only eye to understand these things is completely egotistical and arrogant. By your own rules, you've completely failed to illustrate episode 2. I'd rather not have an edit war over this. Rather than have an image deleted, I'll use it to illustrate the character's article. The other image is entirely suitable for the Eve Miles article. I expect your support. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, see, now my image is being listed as orphaned fair use. Because you've decided that your image best illustrates the article. Lovely. Why don't YOU discuss why YOUR image has merits, since MINE was the one there first? I spent a good deal of work coming up with the image I thought was best. It is in your interest to decide that your image is better, as mine was there first. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 18:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larna

You're right: I could have sworn there was a reference to her being related to the Doctor in there somewhere, but I can't find it (I think I've found the line I was thinking of and it says student). I also could have sworn nothing happened between them, but that reference I did find... Daibhid C 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzie Costello

I know she only appeared in one episode of Torchwood, but I personally think she merits her own article due to the amount she was featured in promotional material. Like the Radio Times bios and the BBC Torchwood website where she has her own section and is featured in the wallpaper gallery. Therefore I think she could possibly be considered a special case. --GracieLizzie 13:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bogeyman bussemand double meaning

I believe you took away part of my posting of a danish bogeyman. A friend of tells me that english too has the second meaning of bogeyman : a lump of snot. Must we keep this a secret?

List of Minor Characters (Torchwood)

Would that seem like a godd idea? We can put characters such as Suzie Costello and the Cyberwoman in.--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

char template

using whoniverse as the param would be a possible solution i.e. series=whoniverse. 23:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Girl in the Fireplace

The episode just aired here in Canada and like many others I was enchanted by it. I was rather disappointed to see the "intellectual snobbery" (your words, I believe) that greeted this episode when folks tried to add something about it to the Madame de Pomadour article. I noticed you were quite active in the argument back in May. I'm on your side on this one -- I don't get why folks didn't want to even have it mentioned. (I recognized one of the "anti-GITF" editors as being one who took me to task because I'd stated Audrey and Katherine Hepburn weren't related when in fact they're cousins 3 million times removed, or something. Don't ask. I think if some people had their way, Wikipedia would be simply a clone of Brittanica and all the Doctor Who articles (and for that matter any other pop culture articles) would be shunted off to some out-of-the-way wiki. Cheers! 23skidoo 06:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday

Just to clarify why I reverted in case you missed it in the article history. We should try (insofar as the new series are concerned) to avoid references to "future" stories which are spoilery. The rationale is this: people who read down expect spoilers for the episode they are reading about; they may not want to be spoiled about episodes they haven't yet seen. We've been generally okay with the classic Doctor Who stuff because those are really old episodes but for the new series on (which includes Torchwood), we should keep in mind that not everyone has seen these at the same time. So, back references are okay, but forward references should be done in a non-spoiler way. Thanks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted :)~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sarahsutton.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarahsutton.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 20:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional texts

I'd love any input or organization you might be able to put to User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction essay. I'm trying to work out on broad principle some of the popular culture issues, at least as they relate to fictional texts, so that debates over them are somewhat less sterile, and so that everyone is on the same page about things like sourcing. Phil Sandifer 18:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore passport

Hi

Need an opinion here. At the above page, a user persists in adding a prod tag to the article despite the template being meant only for uncontested nominations. I've put my point across on the talk page on multiple occasions but he persists. I'm dropping a note on your talk page (and on the other 2 Singaporean admins') to see if you can assist. If the page is not notable or should be deleted, so be it. But not this way. --Rifleman 82 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking an interest all the same. =) Mind if you take a look at my talk page? This user made comments at the top of my user page, which show the motivations for his actions. Is this user worthy of a block? --Rifleman 82 02:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Thanks all the same. --Rifleman 82 03:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rifleman didn't see you point, BUT I saw your point. Your message is not that difficult to "translate". Let me translate what you said. You mean "it doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong, if such act hurt my benefit, then I WILL BLOCK. On the other word, it looks like there is justice here, however, it is not. Right now, the dispute is already over, it is not that necessary to waste our physical strength to fight and block." Am I right? 70.52.66.43 04:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who style guide

Hello... I saw that you reverted the changes to some Torchwood episodes. I wasn't aware that the Doctor Who WikiProject had a style guide that ran contrary to Wikipedia's standards. I'm going to follow up with this on the project page, but I thought I'd ask if you knew why it was that way. Thanks! --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, we should "assume"

don't worry, I knew "you were just being thoughful". May GOD BLESS YOU!!70.52.66.43

Meetup on 24 November

Hello, please confirm yourself for the meetup on the 24th by November 18. If you have any ideas or suggestions, please list them at the meetup page yourself. Thanks. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 04:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tainted poll?

Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC#Looking for anyone who objects to the last poll to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Tyler's age

Apologies if you've answered this elsewhere. I was just wondering how you arrived at Pete Tyler's date of birth of September 15th, 1954. Thanks, Andrew

Boom Town

Hi. I share the dislike of overlong synopses. I've seen a few too many turn from effective summaries to "--then he said and then she said and then they did and then she said and then--", even though this one is relatively well-written. The point of the sadly incomplete rewrite is to significantly reduce the length of the article (even with the quotes), increasing its readability while maintaining usefulness. That said, that certainly wasn't clear from the first edits and the quotes don't have much more justification than my own personal preference. --Kizor 01:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Adventures (April 2007)

See my post [[here to make sarcastic comments about it.--Keycard ^(talk) 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 Hi. I share the dislike of overlong synopses. I've seen a few too many turn from effective summaries to "--then he said and then she said and then they did and then she said and then--", even though this one is relatively well-written. The point of the sadly incomplete rewrite is to significantly reduce the length of the article (even with the quotes), increasing its readability while maintaining usefulness. That said, that certainly wasn't clear from the first edits and the quotes don't have much more justification than my own personal preference. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 01:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
+== New Adventures (April 2007) ==
+See my post [[[[Talk:New_Series_Adventures_%28Doctor_Who%29#April_2007|here]] to make sarcastic comments about it.--[[User:Keycard|'''Keycard''']] <sup>([[User talk:Keycard|talk]])</sup> 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)