User talk:Fourthords/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Image copyright problem with Image:104 0475.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:104 0475.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Negative; I just cropped the image. I am not the original uploader. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 08:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

favour

Nov. 16 & Nov 27 IFDs are all processed. -Regards Nv8200p talk 19:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Possum, thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Weird Al Talk Page

Per your request at The Albums Wikiproject, I've moved to the Weird Al Yankovic talk page and left my opinions there. You may be surprised at my opinions; I prefer a third and much simpler method which I use myself (I've taken guidance from an admin. on my method and incorporate his formatting into mine). Check the Talk Page for more, and for a detailed example that I am proposing. =) CycloneGU (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I dig, thanks for the input! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you like for me to do some editing to the page when I wake up? I'm off to bed shortly, but I'll be happy to assist with that and send you a message when it's done some hours from now. =) CycloneGU (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to wait a bit for more input before implementing changes that we may decide to change again, but fwiw, I'm strongly leaning toward your design. I'm replying there now btw. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll stand by. I can fix it up quickly in about 10-15 minutes once I have a go-ahead and I start working on it.

Would you mind, in the event I edit, if I remove the #2 citation from each track? According to my chats with TenPoundHammer, I don't think a citation on each track name is needed; I've found in history that some sources actually have the titles WRONG. (Heck, check out Kenny Rogers' Short Stories album; the sources have it so wrong I had to add an Editor's Note above the tracklist discouraging changes since I've seen photos of the albums thanks to an eBay seller; even the track order in the source is flawed!) CycloneGU (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied at T:WAY, but the [2] cite is for the track length, not the track names or ordering. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Song citations

You could add something at the top that says "The track listing is as follows:" followed by a singular reference to Allmusic or some other similar source that verifies the track names and lengths. That would be much simpler. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

True, and thanks, I'll keep that in mind for when we're done discussing the listing's formatting itself. Also, if you're inclined, we're discussing that album's track listing at it's discussion page; you're more than welcome to join in (Talk:"Weird Al" Yankovic (album)#tables v. numbered lists). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• copied to User talk:TenPoundHammer#Another Album Referencing Question for continuity of discussion with other participants

He hasn't joined in yet (I hope he will!), but I wanted to point out I added to yesterday's reply at that talk page. I gave my arguments for why single column layouts are better, and that it's in the interest of making Wikipedia user-friendly for 100% of users (instead of just the 85% or so with higher resolution). While I can see the columns, if I boot up my old Windows 98 with a 640x480, I wouldn't like the look of two columns. I hope this view helps! =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Numb3rsCastorig.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Numb3rsCastorig.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but I tagged it as missing its copyright holder as well. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 08:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Whitman Images

I uploaded several of the photos on the Whitman page. You came along and altered the images. I believe the images are best when left in their unaltered state. If you do not share this view, please reply so I can stop contributing photos due to conflicting views. Thank you! Victor9876 (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to dissuade you from contributing, but for libre-licensed imagery, there's nothing to prevent anybody from making any edits to them; "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", remember?

However, all I did to the images at Charles Whitman was crop them to better illustrate their subjects, remove black spaces, and straighten crooked images. Leaving them as they were was less beneficial to our readers, so I didn't expect any dissention. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. An Encyclopedia uses images as an illustration where text can not convey the subject, or to illustrate a point. You are right in your reminder, and I have been dissuaded from any other postings. Victor9876 (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You altered my image of California's Central Valley.JPG

It looks really great! Thanks. I have been doing the same thing with some of my other pics. The date on it says Dec 28....is that when you up loaded it?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Urm, it was originally uploaded it to the Wikimedia Commons on 2007-07-09 by Amadscientist; I then cropped and enhanced it on 2008-01-28. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Chris-Popotan.jpg

Since you have tagged the file, I will state that the original source for the image i am using is the url itself. The copyright it listed on the image itself (i don't see how you can make it anymore clear) and as it taken from the game, it's obvious the copyright holder created the image.じんない 05:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The URL provided is a 404 and provides zero information. The watermark on the image is not in English and uncorroboratable for editors on the English Wikipedia; as such, it could be made much clearer. To say that the copyright holder "obviously" created the image is a non-sequitur; anybody can create imagery based upon copyrighted works/characters, and such material would be considered derivative works from the originally held copyright.

As the tag and WP:NFCC#10a stipulate, listing the copyright holder is required for all non-free imagery. As this file does not, such tagging is needed. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll fix the url. However, the copyright information is still there, whether or not it is in Japanese. It is listed as a screenshot as it comes from the game itself; ergo, the copyright holder is the game's producer (unless someone bought them, which is this case, that did not happen).じんない 05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Worst thing in WP

re: this edit

What about the notability I added don't you comprehend. Do I have to use big pictures and little words in some magic combination? Go pick on Buffy the Vampire series... the state you rules mechanics put this series into is horribly embarrassing.

WP:NOTE is the worst guideline ramroaded through in my five plus years editing these pages as I argued back when. I'm just trying to clean up a really big mess I found created in holy name of I'm following a guideline regardless of how badly it makes the project look kinda shit edits... which with 180+ high-quality pages impacted really required a monumentally stubborn sense of duty, however misguided. One zealot with a few henchmen totally raped some really good articles from what I can see. (Besides, the starletts have nice tits. <g>)

The academics seem to think having popular culture related articles is unworthy, but fact is until we repudiate the five pillars and we close editing, you may as well try to empty the ocean using a fork— People will go on creating them. The lost editing hours wasted trying to stamp them out makes me very angry and the project much poorer. A high sources standard is not needed for such, quotes from the primary source material are far better than some writers opinion in a magazine or whatever. Or don't you trust people to . Kindly stop wallpapering the world with stupid in-the-face tags (which are also controversial like WP:NOTE!) and help... not be part of the problem. // FrankB 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with assuming "Notability" on Wikipedia means "of note", is that the latter is a subjective assumption.

You feel that because of X, Y, and Z reasons, this article is worthy of note; instead, (hypothetically) I feel that absolutely nothing on television worthy of note. This is an awesome recipe for conflict between editors. To avoid this, we all agreed beforehand that there needs to be objective criteria that will determine article "worth"; unfortunately we called it the "notability guideline", and that's caused a lot of confusion.

Instead of me of you deciding what we want deserves articles, we compare the article to the guideline and see if it meets muster. That way it's not me saying an article is notable, and it's not you saying you don't think so; we can both easily read the guideline and see if it meets the criteria set forth.
For example, I think my wife's notable, but you may not. Instead of making such an article and fighting back and forth with nasty words as to the importance of my wife, the community can simply point to WP:N and say, "We all collectively agree that this article—not your wife specifically—doesn't meet our threshold for notability/inclusion."

Not only does "Charmed Again" not meet those objective criteria ("[Evidence of having] received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"), but it doesn't even meet the verifiability policy. I'm neither "against" or "picking on" this article, nor do I explicitly want it deleted for any given reason at this point. The tags are there to help people know that there's something wrong with it, and what they need to do to fix it and help keep the article around.

Now, secondly: I'm not going to rise to the bait and argue with you about opinions on policies and guidelines. You may not appreciate the Notability guideline or Verifiability policy and why they're in place and enforced, but they are and that's the cost for playing here. If you still wish to discuss them and your opinions/intentions, I recommend you do so at WT:N and WT:V; I won't here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No I respect others time and follow Jimbo's appreciation of the matter. It it amazing how many thing people find interesting and are willing to spend time investing in covering. Spitting on THAT and the thousands of man-hours they invested instead of living and let live is arrogant and I feel, evil. That you can with straight face assert that ignoring primary source material and so requiring secondary source material about intellectual property protected by copyright is sufficient grounds to exclude something leaves one to doubt your ability to function. Anyone can read (or view) source materials, so WP:V is not a part of this and so as I've done all along, I spit upon such an interpretation of notability.

      How can you claim there is no independent coverage when the episode was turned into this book? or this or full scripts not to mention 300 thousand plus other hits...

Lastly, as the restart of the series, like the beginning or end of any series it is self-evidently notable as such hold uniquely valuable information as a rule. The thing which gripes me... I spent the last almost two months while convalescing addressing the flawed and embarrassing synopses in List of Charmed episodes when I happened across reruns of the series and enjoyed the humor (and gals). Seeing that the page needed work, I've probably averaged 4-6 hours an day and filled up my recorder with unprocessed episodes, only to find out yesterday that the rules nazi's raped the excellent coverage most of this series had and turned it into inadequate redirects. I'm supposed to be happy about the waste of time, when someone should have been wise enough to let well enough alone?

Btw, if you post on the other guys talk he gets an alert message. It's only courteous. // FrankB 00:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply line/paragraph at a time as best I can to try and address your reply. Please refrain from making (even generalized) attacks against other contributers. Calling us all arrogant and evil is very uncivil and would warrant a warning were I so inclined.

You're still arguing against/about the guidelines and policies again, and I'm not going to have those discussions with you on my talk page. You calling me incompetent, and "spitting" on the guidelines doesn't make them go away. So long as they're there and they reflect the current majority consensus (regardless of how you personally feel), they're the rules we play by. If you don't want to, I'm aware that there're a large number of specialty Wikis with less-stringent regulations on Wikia. In fact, it appears the Charmed Wiki may be what you're looking for.

I made no claim of a lack of coverage, only that the article lacks evidence thereof. I would recommend you vet your very many sources for reliability and include them in the article.

Again, "rape", "nazi"; easily interpretable as personal attacks.
That said, you're probably right, it probably is notable, but the article needs evidence of that; that's why the tags are there. If I felt there were no chance of this meeting the guidelines and policies we've discusses, I would probably {{prod}} or nominate for deletion instead.

Lastly, the notice at the top of my talk page tells you that if you comment here, here's where I'll reply. I'm sorry you don't like my SOP, but your repeated incivility and plainly personal attacks won't make you my exemplar for courtesy. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Music of Athens, Georgia

In my attempt to find the last clean version of the article I managed to undo your image resizing (I had already found errors in the version you reverted to previously, sorry). Do you want to have another go based on my edit, or have you reverted already? No problems either way. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't watch the page and catch your edits. The image size changes were to avoid confliction with users' preferential set thumbnails, and I'll make 'em again later sure, thanks for the heads up. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

'kay. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't undo my edits. Everything's fine. False alarm? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Law & Order: UK

Since I just archived my talkpage, I may as well start a new thread here. I have finished my copyedit of Law & Order: UK, but the lead will have to wait for later. The main differences from before are that I removed most refs from the infobox, restructured the refs into run-on refs instead of newlined refs, removed oversectioning, merged single sentences into groups of themes, and did the actual copyedit for prose. Almost no info got lost, although you should check if I accidently changed the meaning somewhere (I am mostly unfamiliar with the franchise). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That was fantastically done, thank you. I'll miss my {{quotation}}, but I'm pleased with seeing it worked into the prose, that was very nice. While I prefer newlined refs, is there a MoS guideline for either formatting? I'm quite pleased you're not familiar, that allowed you to approach it as just another article, which is ultimately what I was looking for (another set of eyes to catch things I didn't because I've looked at it for too long). Thanks again! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have touched the quotation if its section didn't also have to deal with a picture and the infobox width; it was just too much IMO. There is no MOS about ref formatting (I think), and I actually liked the newlined ref as well as a newbie, but once you go past a dozen refs (and I have written articles with 100 refs), the whole "it's easier to read" bonus of newlined refs goes *poof*. Restore the newlined refs if you like; this article is not going to be my baby. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:392221718 9e66d89ca7 o.jpg

Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Luther Burger Goolge.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. During the move I changed the name of the image to better reflect Naming Conventions policy, the article that contained the image has been updated to reflect the new name as it exists now on Commons. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:392221718 9e66d89ca7 o.jpg

File:392221718 9e66d89ca7 o.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Luther Burger Goolge.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Luther Burger Goolge.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pc10coa.png is now available as Commons:File:Pc10coa.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Stco23

I did put a rational on that image the day I uploaded it. You must have not read it. Go to File:Rgbfull.jpg and check it again, it's on there. Thank you.--Stco23 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"display entire finalized box set"? That single, incomplete sentence is not a detailed fair-use rationale. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I improved the fair use rational, I hope this makes you happy.--Stco23 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Hi - I just reformatted your signature at WP:RM because it was breaking the text formatting for the section lower down. I couldn't work out exactly what was wrong in order to fix it, so I just substituted it for a bog-standard User:pd_THOR one instead. Feel free to replace that with the correct version though! Best, Knepflerle (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No idea, but thanks, I certainly don't mind. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 10:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Law & Order UK

You're very welcome. I've done a couple more and will have another look asap. Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Any time! I've done a couple more: I think that's all I can see for now. Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops sorry I only just saw "Hey, wait! Hang on a sec!" - apologies for not complying! DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No biggie, I certainly don't take it personally! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Re

No problemo. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Care (Law & Order: UK)

On March 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Care (Law & Order: UK), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ken May

On March 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ken May, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to 33 (Battlestar Galactica)

Please stop reinserting the broken link that I have corrected. It is &ep=101, not &ep=0101. When you follow the correct link, the page title quite clearly states that it is episode 101. And that is a reliable source. — Edokter • Talk • 14:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's strange, because the link worked for me yesterday before I replaced it. Now I'm receiving some sort of parsed broken page, probably what you're seeing as well. Sorry about that; I've fixed it! Could it be a browser difference? (Opera yesterday, Chrome today)

Regarding the URL's title, do you assume that "Episode" = "production code"? I don't. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that the 101 in the URL is the production code. If you strongly disagree, then remove the citation. While I agree with you that since there is a challenge, a source must be provided, I also believe this to be an extremely minor issue not worth the contention, and the length and tone of this debate is, I fear, becoming a bit "pointy". So long as the season and episode number is identified, an actual production number is mere trivia. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussed ad nauseam on the talk page is that there is no explicit source for a production code; the URL is certainly not a reliable source, and that page's title refers to that as an episode number, "Episode 101". I appreciate your concurrence with regard to my challenging the information, it would bear moreso on that page. I don't think including the information is worth edit warring over either, but I'm not Edokter (talk · contribs). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Air dates for UK can be found here - I added a cite in info box. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 05:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Joint Expedition Against Franklin

Could you comment on the talk page of the article about a comment by a new editor. It would help, after all, to have some secondary as well as primary sources, and soe evidence that the name in the article title was in fact used. I'll keep in touch with it there. DGG (talk)

No prob. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

do you think it could stand up to a good article review now in its current state? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh... I'm not sure! I'm worried that DGG (talk · contribs) has a concern about "secondary sources", although I'm not sure that the ones included don't qualify. Worst comes to worst, you could nominate it, and it's declined. Nothing lost there! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The actual meaning of my note was that I would strongly oppose GA, as it is apparently completely based on primary sources, thus violating the rule against SYNTHESIS. It's a good account, but surely the standard secondary sources for the War over it? It looks like no check at all was done for them. DGG (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Image tagging for File:Spock-B Stacey.jpg

I was wondering about your notice, PdThor. Is the website where the image is found not enough? I would welcome some assistance in squaring the matter away to your satisfaction. Let me know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Update, I've added additional sourcing to the image; was that what you were seeking? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The image needed to list who was the actual copyright holder, but just wherefrom the image was found. You took care of that, no prob ("Andrew 'Sarge' Grieb"). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So, to be clear, the image is fine now? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you took care of it. Sorry! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will use that as the guide from now on. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Tritovore.jpg

I noticed that you added to orphaned template to the above image. Please be aware that there is a discussion on this image at [1]. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Chainsaws for stone, concrete and brick

Hi Peedee, I noticed you added the unreferenced tag to the section on Chainsaws for stone, concrete and brick, but as the only available material to me on this subject is commercial stuff, I thought I could hardly use that. See also: more about this on the talk page, where some links to videos are added. If you know of a way to add a link without advertising, please do! Greetings, --Satrughna (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally, you're right. Commercial information is rarely reliable as it's not written from a neutral point of view—obviously. since they're trying to sell a product. Now, you can use the fact that they are sold as a source, citing a simple fact such as, "This company, this company, and this company all sell chainsaws specifically for this purpose." It's not terribly informative, but it's really the only suitable purpose such advermation (advertisement/information) can have in an article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Thor, I will try to fit something in. Useful comment. Greetings, --Satrughna (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

okay...

If you are removing the picture on SG-1 season 1, please replace it with something like this http://stargate.ugo.com/images/sg-1/stargate-sg-1-season-1.jpg, i don't know how to upload a pic. new on wikipedia.--Trust Is All You Need (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Lina Leandersson

Nice re-touch of the photograph, which unfortunately suffers badly from artifacts and discoloring. It looks better now, thanks! I like how you formatted the infobox caption, is it from the MoS? decltype (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad you appreciated the photo touch-up, I thought it could benefit from such. Er, no, it's more like from MoS:pd_THOR. I came across it a few times, and adopted it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bypass redirects

Unless the name is wrong, bypassing redirects is generally discouraged. In the case of Hippie, you bypassed Peace symbol, which is actually the correct title of the article, and redirected it to Peace symbols which was a bad move that has yet to be corrected. Symbol articles are generally referred to in the singular not the plural, although another variation using "symbolism" is also used. Several people have moved or created articles with the plural "symbols" and this is not accurate per naming conventions. By bypassing the redirect, you are changing whatlinkshere, which supports restoring the original name. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Alesha (Law & Order: UK)

Hey Thor. I'm not sure what you intended, but Alesha (Law & Order: UK) was a redirect to itself; thought you'd want to know. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're saying I had Alesha (Law & Order: UK) redirecting to Alesha (Law & Order: UK)? D'oh! Yeah, definitely not my intention, thanks for the catch! That should teach me not to try and edit while watching TV.  :^D — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Heather O'Rourke

Hi. With regards to the USA acronym - fair enough. I guess it doesn't matter too much. I was looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) and it says U.S. is preferred over United States for brevity (although that is said in relation to article names). It also says that the full name should be given in the first instance in the article, and acronyms subsequently. I was figuring the infobox to be the first instance. The MoS uses "U.S" rather than "USA". What do you think? It's a fairly minor point, but I figure you must care about it or you wouldn't have reverted. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You're totally right, it's just me. It just rubs me the wrong way when the line breaks just because the City, State, Country is a tad too long; I'll also truncate really long state names sometimes to prevent it (Mass., Conn.). Since it's generally preferred (in practice, although it may be codified somewhere) to cite information in the prose before doing so in the infobox, I usually count the prose as "first" and the infobox as ... um ... "other". /shrug

As for U.S. vs. USA vs. U.S.A., etc. I don't honestly care that much; since "USA" was an acceptable acronym at WP:ABBR, and I liked how it looked, and it was less ambiguous than omitting the "A", I stick with it as my own personal SOP. Nobody's ever reverted my doing so before, so I've taken it as acceptable.  :^) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

just another thought - do you think a line break would be effective as a way of truncating the line, and making it look less crowded? Jane Wyman is an example of what I mean. Rossrs (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is effective, and it also prevents the possibility of "USA" or "US" being ambiguous, but being from the United States, the City, State, Country formatting specifically looks "right" to me because it's our postal standard. Dropping the country a line certainly isn't something I'd edit war over or anything, I just prefer the former. (Full disclosure though, when there's a line break after the State, only to then use the abbreviation, I just can't let that stand!  ;^D One or the other folks, but another separate line just for two or three characters is usually unnecessary, and chaps my aesthetic hide!) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your viewpoint. It's clearly not a question of right or wrong, more a question of preference, so I'll leave Heather alone. I agree that the line break works in some cases, and in others, it's not even necessary. Nice to get another opinion! I just noticed on WP:ABBR that USA is also the suggested abbreviation for "United States Army", but I'm sure that's not where Heather was born ;-) Cheers Rossrs (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Better categorization

Category:Television actors or Category:Film actors are supposed to be completely empty of individual articles, with all articles diffused into country-specific subcategories instead. I added Category:Better category needed to any article for which the appropriate national subcategory either could not be determined from the article content or was being disputed by you or SummerPhD — because articles do not belong in the undifferentiated parent categories, any article that's in one of those categories needs a better one than it currently has. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

But if no appropriate national subcategory can be determined from the article (due to a lack of reliable sources), why tag with "Better category needed" if no better can be implemented? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the article can always stay in Category:Better category needed until the sources are actually present to support the categories. One cleanup project doesn't have to preclude the other one. Bearcat (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of 9/11 conspiracy theories, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  17:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My edits to Heather O'Rourke

Was there something bad with the sources? I just don't understand why you undid my edits. Johannamo (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. I was disconcerted by the source, so I took it to the reliable sources noticeboard for those editors to vet. See here for the discussion, and feel free to contribute there with any questions or concerns. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this

Hello! I have done some searches and am actually turning up academic discussions on this character in university press published books. I am working on some out of universe sections off-wiki, although I have begun adding some of the scholarly analysis to the article already. Anyway, please consider for example how Camille Bacon-Smith writes, "In the Blake's 7 character Cally, who can never experience the telepathic presence of another because her people are dead and the humans cannot communicate on her level, the loneliness of many women who feel that they give understanding but receive nothing back to nurture their sense of belonging finds representation." Bacon-Smith identifies a contrast between Mr. Spock and Cally, noting how unlike Spock, "the telepathic alien Cally on Blake's 7 could send thoughts but could not receive them from any other sending telepath. Separated from her own people, Cally could communicate with others at the level of the mind, but she could never receive communication in return. Whereas for Sock telepathy diminished the solitude of the alien, for Cally telepathy only made her alien solitude more acute. Bacon-Smith goes on to argue that while "Mr. Spock represents the positive value of an understanding merged with the other, Cally represents the tragedy when comprehension of the totality of the other is forever denied." There's a number of material like this that for some odd reason the regular Google search doesn't necessarily pick up and I am working on thinking of how to put it all in the article, but anyway, please take into consideration on this one that I am in the process of adding out of universe commentary, which actually does exist in academic sources and in more than just passing references (Bacon-Smith cites Cally over a couple pages. Thanks your for your time and consideration! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, you could have just said that the article has significantly changed, and that I should look again. Heck, my talkpage doesn't even have a {{reflist}} section to show your references above!  ;^) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for keeping an open-minded. I greatly respect those editors who take changes into account during discussions. Have a wonderful day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure though, I do not take into account claims of potentiality made in the AfD discussion but not implemented in an article. Saying "It can be done" doesn't warrant the change in mind that "It has been done" does. Cheers! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's why I try to do it myself as much as possible in these scenarios as usually I kind find something as at least a start. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		This barnstar of peace is awarded to Pd THOR, for changing his mind in a AfD, when sourcing was provided. Ikip (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Like Chris. thanks. Ikip (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thought you should know

A discussion has begun in regards to Edokter's behavior at AN/I and your name has been brought up. As I can see no one has notified you, I thought I would do so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I was offline for a day or so and appreciate the pointer. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Jason Zimbler dob and IMDB as a source for BLPs?

I always imagined the IMDB was an ok source for BLPs, especially if the content sourced is not controversial. I have asked for a second opinion at BLP talk here.Greedyhalibut (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up I'll go on over there. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:PLOT

This has had a lengthy RfC, and, in the end, it was agreed that plot summaries should be improved, not deleted. A consensus was reached, and this was implemented. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood my comment (or perhaps I poorly worded myself); I have replied duly at the DRV. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jason Zimbler

On June 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jason Zimbler, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tavix |  Talk  16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

GateWorld

Can you vote on the following discussion. I'm asking you because of your comment on the wikiproject page. --TIAYN (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Von_Brunn_after_Arrest.jpg now has copyright holder info

KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 00:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okie-dokie. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So is it STILL a candidate for Speedy Deletion? D: KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 13:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, although for different reasons than I tagged it for. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

not whoops

You wrote "whoops" that someone replaced the template in the 2009 Washington Metro train collision. This is not a whoops. It was intentional. The collision has occured. Will it be keep reoccurring like a hurricane approaching land? Therefore, a tiny tweak was made. However, I'm not going to fight over it. I do think the tweak is more accurate.

Current message: This article documents a current event. Infomation may change rapidly as the event progresses.

Tweak: This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the investigation progresses.

I certainly hope the wrecked train won't back up and start smashing into other trains like a horror movie and possessed train with a mind of its own. User F203 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Winona Ryder

i am 85.185.82.97.why removed winona ryder in list from star trek.excuse me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.185.82.97 (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello 85.185.82.97. Ms. Winona Ryder was not a featured performer of Star Trek, and as such does not warrant listing in that film's infobox, least of all third billing. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

excuse me,ashamed,thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.185.82.97 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No biggie, I certainly didn't assume any malice on your part. I'm sorry I didn't explain it better at the time. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actors

Please note that Category:Television actors, Category:Film actors and Category:Stage actors all have {{catdiffuse}} on them. There is an absolute, non-negotiable requirement to keep those categories empty of individual articles — all individual articles must be diffused out of the undifferentiated parents. If an article isn't sourced enough for a nationality category, then it isn't sourced enough to be on here at all in the first place — so you can nominate such an article for deletion if you choose, but moving an article from a national category into the undifferentiated parent is not appropriate or acceptable, because there's a standing requirement to keep that parent category as close as possible to being empty of individual articles by moving articles the other way. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The template {{catdiffuse}} says "Articles in this category should be moved to subcategories when appropriate. [...] It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories." Nothing in that notice refers to absolutism, non-negotiability, or any requirements to keep articles out of them. Can you point me to the guideline or policy dictating your position? Also, were I to remove the profession categorization, it has been my experience that the article would be tagged as insufficiently categorized. Can you assure me that Category:Living people alone is sufficient categorization for a biographical article?

Secondly, are you arguing that if a biographical article doesn't have a reliably sourced nationality, it mustn't meet our various inclusion criteria (such as the Notability guideline)? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"It should list very few, if any, article pages directly" means "there shouldn't be articles in here". Put another way, it means "keep articles out of here". Put yet another way, it means "this category should only contain subcategories and not individual articles".

And kindly also note that what I said is that articles with no reliable sources for any of their content shouldn't be here in the first place. I didn't say that articles that are well-sourced otherwise but lack sources for that one detail don't meet our notability guidelines — which would be particularly silly given that such articles simply don't exist in the first place.

What you're doing is placing an excessively high burden of proof on something that very few, if any, sources are ever going to go out of their way to point out in the first place: if a newspaper article has already described a person as a "native of Seattle", then they're not going to take extra pains to note that she's an American citizen on top of what they've already said.

And furthermore, "national-occupation" subcategories aren't and never were restricted only to native-born citizens of a country — anybody can be filed in any category for any country that they've lived in for long enough to have a substantial career in that country, whether they were born there or not, whether they ever attained full citizenship or not. They're not restricted, and never were, to subjective and impossible-to-adequately-reference notions of a person's official nationality — the only requirement that a person has to meet to be categorized as an American actor is to have worked as an actor while residing in the United States, whether American is their primary nationality or not. If they have German or French nationality, then they can be in German or French actor categories too; there's never been a rule that we can only categorize people by one country. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If what you say is the case with regards to the {{catdiffuse}}-tagged categories, then shouldn't the template say that instead?

I am sorry though for misinterpreting what you meant regarding deleting articles and reliable sourcing. However, did you mean to say that well-sourced articles otherwise lacking sourced nationality "simply don't exist"? That's what I understood from your reply, but must be somehow mistaken as that doesn't make any sense. To prevent misunderstanding on my part, can you rephrase that?

I'm placing a burden of proof on what we can verifiably state without wandering into assumption or inference. If a newspaper article has described an individual as a "native of Seattle", then it is original research on our part to assume or infer that the individual isn't a national of Canada, and has simply lived in Seattle for the majority of their acting career. William Shatner has performed most recognizably in American media but is a Canadian national, and as such is categorized as a Canadian actor in film and television. Douglas Adams was English, but spent a great amount of time writing in the United States by his own admission (see The Salmon of Doubt); having lived and written a great deal in the USA doesn't make him an American novelist. Cillian Murphy was born in Ireland and is categorized as an Irish performer, yet lives in London and has performed in internationally-based media. Precedence (consensus therein, I would assume) seems to indicate that national categorization is based on nationality, not the individual's residence or their works' providence. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you interpret the word "should" differently, but it doesn't mean "the following is a suggestion that users are free to ignore at their whim" — it means "this must be followed outside of rare and unusual exceptions where there is an extenuating reason why it can't". It doesn't communicate "optional".

And yes, I am saying that we don't have any articles that are well-sourced for everything else about the actor but are badly-sourced on the detail of the person's nationality alone. We have articles that are unsourced or very poorly sourced in general. We have articles that are well-sourced across the board. What we really don't have is a significant number of articles that are otherwise high-quality but are badly-sourced only on that one specific detail.

It isn't original research to suggest that a "native of Seattle" is an American national unless sources explicitly state that she's not, because if she is an American national and citizen no reliable source on the planet will ever make special effort to point that out on top of stating that she was born in Seattle. If she was actually a German or Canadian or Greek national who was born and raised in Seattle, the sources would certainly point that out, because it's contrary to the expectation — but no source on the planet is ever going to say that she was born in Seattle and has American nationality and citizenship, because unless the source explicitly states otherwise the former automatically implies the latter anyway. Which means that short of a searchable public database of actual birth certificates, her nationality thus becomes permanently unsourceable because you've already ruled out the highest level of detail any source is ever actually going to provide as being not good enough.

Quite simply, the only neutral and non-OR position we can take is to assume that a person's official nationality conforms with their birthplace unless and until we have sources explicitly stating that it doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The ambiguous "should" usage, along with "when appropriate" and "very few", doesn't make this the hard and fast rule you're describing; if it is supposed to be, it should be described as such.

I do agree that nationality=birthplace unless explicitly noted otherwise. I, however, do not agree that being "from somewhere", or a "native" of somewhere=birthplace; that's the original research. Granted, it's a likely assumption, however the rub is that it's an assumption at all and therefore OR. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Join the conversation

at Wikipedia talk:PLOT. 67.100.126.76 (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely; thanks for the notice! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Barnstar

Thanks for the acknowledgment, mate. I appreciate it. :) --From Andoria with Love (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Daniel.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Daniel.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I only reverted a vandalistic image upload there; I am not the file's original uploader. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)