User talk:Fru1tbat/Archive 1

My "This album" edits
Yes, you are correct. -- Fantailfan 13:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

BSG moving
Sorry 'bout that. It just made more sense to me since the series are called "1978 ..." and "2004 ...". I guess I'll just have to wait for a second miniseries. :) --Pax:Vobiscum 10:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chairmanofall (talk • contribs) 12:23, October 20, 2006 (UTC).
 * My vandalsim? Your edit removed content, unlinked or reformatted properly linked/correctly formatted dates into incorrect dates, broke properly disambiguated links, and added a link to the same live-stream that plenty of other more obvious vandals have added in the past. My considering your edit to be vandalism (though more subtle than usual) and reversion of it was well-founded, in my opinion, and justified. Explain yours. -- Fru1tbat 12:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome aboard!
Glad to see another has joined WikiProject Battlestar Galactica. Thanks also for your help regarding naming conventions for articles on multi-part episodes. As you've probably gathered, the project is in its infancy but I'm hoping that, with help, it will pick up steam soon. Thanks once again for joining, and I look forward to working with you in future. -- BlueSquadron Raven 23:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks for your help with the KJ-52 album pages. Don't think it went unnoticed. I appreciate it. &mdash; Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 09:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

nowiki tags
Maybe it's just me but I dont see a difference :-\ ? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Present tense in articles on fictional matter
Could you please explain why you are such a strong adherent of the view that all fictional works should be documented in the present tense? I recognise it as a valid viewpoint, but I think that past tense documentation is equally descriptive, and sometimes works better: to take a specific example from the Battlestar Galactica pages, it might be confusing to say that Saul Tigh is married to his late wife, Ellen Tigh. Judicious use of the past tense (and, occasionally, the pluperfect tense) helps to make the sequence of events in a fictional work more clear. When one watches an episode, one is watching it "in the present tense". But what about flashbacks? And what of books that are written in the past tense? I'm curious to sound you out on this, not start a war over it! :-) Sullivan.t.j 17:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's just the way Wikipedia is supposed to be written, generally, according to various style guides (see WP:BETTER, for instance). It's also standard style when writing about fictional events, at least for out-of-universe sources (which Wikipedia is). You're right that it's awkward to read that Saul Tigh "is" married to Ellen, but then again, I probably wouldn't write it exactly like that. It's worse to say he was married to Ellen, since that implies a specific perspective where the events are treated like a historical account, whereas as you said, they're experienced in the present tense. To say that someone did something or was something places them as a single event, when instead they're experienced anew with every viewing, and they happen again and again. When someone watches the beginning of the series, Saul is married to Ellen. Adama is a Commander, not an Admiral. As a reader, I shouldn't expect to find an encyclopedia article that discusses an event as if it were a single historical occurrence...
 * Pluperfect, though, is different, and sounds fine to me when used appropriately, since it places events relative to the event being written about, not relative to an absolute timeframe (e.g. "Roslin becomes concerned about Baltar's involvement because she realizes she had seen him with Six previously." -- here, present and pluperfect work just fine together). Even past tense might be ok in a context like this; just not in general.
 * I think where there seems to be a conflict, the top priority is to keep the perspective correct. There's no reason, for example, that the Tigh article intro line can't just say that he's a fictional character, and note who plays him, omitting the rest. The beginning of the spoiler section should establish that he's Galactica's XO and that he's married to Ellen, within the proper timeframe context. The way the intro is currently written is problematic...
 * -- Fru1tbat 04:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BSG-Husker-Viper1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:BSG-Husker-Viper1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BSGMini-00 10 37-part.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:BSGMini-00 10 37-part.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To link to images without including them, you add a colon before the image (e.g. Image:BSGMini-00 10 37-part.jpg ). It might also be a good idea to add a not orphan tag to the images to explain that they are used, even if they appear to be orphaned. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

BSG
Hiya, I understand your concerns about the mediation, but your opinion really does matter to me. :) If it were up to you, how would you like to see the BSG articles named?  With consistent suffixes, or only using a suffix if absolutely needed because there was already some other article with the same name? (and feel free to offer another option if neither of those accurately represents your opinion) --Elonka 04:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My personal feeling, purely on aesthetics, is that specifiers (a.k.a. clarifiers/disambiguators/whatever) make titles look messy. I wish they weren't necessary at all, but of course, multiple identical names are impossible with all articles in the same namespace.
 * Taking the larger issue into account, I think it sets a bad precedent when all articles in a certain category are given the same specifier. Why use one system for one subject and not for others? It also seems rather arbitrary to apply it only to episode titles, and not to every article relating to a series.
 * As far as I'm concerned, title specifiers are a necessary evil that should only be used for distinguishing multiple ambiguous article titles from one another, not for anything else that can be accomplished by the article itself (context, etc).
 * --Fru1tbat 02:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, I appreciate your taking the time to let me know. :) --Elonka 03:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; It's me getting confused. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Battlestar Valkyrie links
(re: ) Hi. I appreciate your comments regarding links to Battlestar Valkyrie. As it happened, I was inspired by the actions of User:132.205.93.205, who redirected the Valkyrie page to List#Valykrie at 02:34, 13 December 2006. I thought that this was a good move, saving users who search for "Battlestar Valkyrie" from then having to scroll down the list (even to find the link in the contents box!); I thought that the small confusion of not seeing "Redirected from..." at the top of the page would be an acceptable price to pay. The great advantage, to my mind, was that editors of pages linking to the Valkyrie could now use the short form of the link rather than a pipe link 9 words long. :-)

I know how those users who keep a weather eye on the BSG section like to keep it from becoming over-populated with small articles, but perhaps we should do something about this list? I would suggest that (on the grounds that they are the longest entries) the Astral Queen and the Valkyrie, and perhaps the Olympic Carrier as well, should be split off from the list into their own articles, with Main article:... and one-line summaries in the list. This would follow the precedent established by the list of minor characters. There, too, there are some characters that have appeared only once, but have enough material to make a list entry unwieldy, hence split/main article/one-liner. Your thoughts on this? Sullivan.t.j 12:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned template bug?
(original comment)

Re: your edit to Unsigned, the template as currently implemented results in the #if parser function being placed on the page when the template is subst'd (e.g.: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NonExistentUser (talk • contribs). ). Ideally, shouldn't the parser be subst'd in the template code as well? The page is protected, so either way, I wouldn't be able to change it, but I thought you might. Thanks. --Fru1tbat 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello! That isn't a coding bug.  It's a software limitation.  The template contained some "garbage" syntax even before the edit in question.  &mdash;David Levy 14:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My template skills aren't all that advanced right now, but shouldn't there be a way to retain proper functionality but remove the actual code when subst'ing the template? Or is it a choice between one or the other, but not both? For example:  works (i.e. gets rid of the parser in the resulting code) when subst'ing, but not when transcluding. I don't suppose there's a way to make it work in both cases... --Fru1tbat 15:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's correct. To my knowledge, the current setup is the only one that displays the intended text under both template insertion methods.  &mdash;David Levy 15:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What we need is for the developers to add an "#ifsubst" command to the software (thereby enabling the specification of specific code to call only when the template is substituted).
 * After typing the above, I discovered that we have a template with that very name and purpose: Template:Ifsubst. I'll investigate its possible use.  &mdash;David Levy 15:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The template doesn't appear to be compatible with this specific application (and it's an ugly kludge in any case). It seems that we'll need to wait for the developers to add the actual "#ifsubst" syntax.  &mdash;David Levy 15:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy note about ArbCom proceeding
Hiya, sorry to bother you, but I wanted to drop you a courtesy note to let you know about a current ArbCom proceeding where your name is briefly mentioned. If you are not familiar with ArbCom, please do not be alarmed. In real-world terms, this is sort of like stating that your name is being mentioned as one of the witnesses (or possibly even bystanders) to a case. ArbCom cases tend to be somewhat large and chaotic, but if you would like to watch the proceedings, you may wish to set Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions on your watchlist. Your own name is probably somewhere on the evidence page, or possibly at the  workshop page. The case is currently in an "evidence-gathering" phase and has not yet reached the state of actual comment by arbitrators yet. My guess is it'll probably run for another month or so before a decision is finalized.

No action is needed on your part, this is just a courtesy note. If you would like to participate in the case though, you are more than welcome. You may wish to offer a statement with your view of events at the case's talkpage, or you can add evidence or participate in the workshop. Many editors routinely participate in ArbCom proceedings regardless of whether or not they are directly involved in the case, since ArbCom rulings are considered "binding" and may have ramifications in other parts of Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, let me know, or feel free to post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions. Best, Elonka 05:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus
I recently found that the Jesus article on Wikipedia is the first item that comes up when you search for "Jesus" on the world’s most widely used search engine, Google.

Please edit the Jesus article to make it an accurate and excellent representation of Him.

The Jesus article may be a person’s first impression of Jesus. It would be nice if their first impression was from a Christian or the Bible, but for so many in these new days it probably comes from the Internet. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thanks a lot.

Also, watch out to follow Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. It is especially hard for the Three-revert rule and the Neutral point of view policy to be followed because of the nature of the article, but please follow these policies along with citing sources so that the article does not get locked from editing and can't be improved further. Thanks again. Scifiintel 17:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I just took a look at the article, and it appears to be pretty well written, as far as I can tell. I've generally avoided editing Wikipedia articles on Christianity (among other subjects) because of the arguments and edit wars that often arise with controversial topics, especially those where religion is involved. I've added it to my watchlist, but I probably won't get too involved unless there's a serious need. --Fru1tbat 18:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

re: mat kearney
cool, thanks for the heads up.

-kaizen@jan10 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaizenyorii (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Re: Vandalism Removal
Hi. The history diffs are actually broken, and I assumed there wasn't another way to revert. But now I see that I can click on a previous version, edit, and save. Thanks.

Here is why the history mechanism is broken: I originally assumed the way to revert was to select two versions, hit "compare selected versions", then hit undo. But after hitting undo, you get a different set of diffs. This only happens when the diffs are more than 1 version apart, so it looks like a bug to me --- or the interface is misleading enough to be called a bug.

Anyway, thanks for the info --- I'll be a better vandal stomper now :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xerxesnine (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Boy do i feel like an idiot
Those Mae cats were already in the Singularity article and i added them, lol. Thanks for removing them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DJREJECTED (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Heh, don't worry about it! I didn't even notice when you added them, actually. :) I only noticed they were duplicates when Alex valavanis moved them up with the others, and they stuck out once they were grouped together... --Fru1tbat 04:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comprising vs Comprised of
Regarding your edit to National Hockey League, believe it or not, "comprises" does mean "is made up of". Using "is comprised of" is seen as incorrect by many (though it's becoming more common). See, for example, thefreedictionary and M-W. Both note that there is a usage problem with the latter definition, hence my edit summary comment that "comprising" is "more correct". "Two conferences, each comprising three divisions" means "two conferences, each made up of three divisions", which is the intent of the sentence. In informal usage, "comprised of three divisions" may mean the same thing, and even though "opposition to this usage is abating" (thefreedictionary), I think we're better off with a non-controversial usage. Maybe it would be even better still not to use the word at all, and to choose an alternative. --Fru1tbat 19:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I must admit, however, that I find the contention in thefreedictionary relating to the usage of "comprise" vs "compose" while perhaps true, is nonetheless logically unconvincing because it introduces unnecessary ambiguity. For greater clarity (and also to add information on the actual numerical composition of the conferences and divisions) I have changed the text in the NHL article to the following: "The NHL is divided into two fifteen-team conferences each of which consists of three five-team divisions." Centpacrr 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, "compose" is unambiguous. The problem is that "comprise" has come to mean both its original meaning and the exact opposite (kind of like "moot" ), so ambiguity is unavoidable, really. Traditional usage would be "the league comprises 30 teams". Modern usage might be "30 teams comprise the league". To me, that should mean "30 teams are made up of the league", but in reality you rarely see it that way anyway. That meaning is always (in my experience) used passively, i.e. "is comprised of". I accept that it's common, but it has become somewhat idiomatic -- I doubt many people who use that meaning would be able to define "comprise" by itself, without the "is" and "of"... In any case, I think the change you made to the article works well.
 * Thanks for the note on the railroad article, by the way. I notice you're in the Philly area (as I am). Can't be quite as much fun working Flyers games this season...
 * --Fru1tbat 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I must admit that the logic as to why and how "comprise" may have fallen into a state of acceptable "androgynous" usage escapes me. A puzzlement to be sure.


 * It has indeed been a dismal hockey season in Philadelphia this year (both with the Flyers and Phantoms), but after working more than 3,000 pro hockey games over the past 37 years I don't get too wound up one way or the other about wins and losses. As my friend the late Flyer coach Fred Shero used to say, "I don't really think about the games, that just drives you crazy." The game is still fun for me, just not quite as much fun this year as it has been in others. (For more information see my informal hockey site at HockeyScoop.net.)


 * I hope you find the Stevens' Camden & Amboy article interesting. While not an engineer myself (I am a writer), I come from a long line of engineers. Both my father and grandfather were EE's, my great grandfather a CE, and great great grandfather a CE and ME. (He was the chief assistant engineer of the Central Pacific Railroad and did much of the engineering and design on for the original construction over the Sierras in the 1860's.) Centpacrr 01:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BSG-Husker-Viper1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:BSG-Husker-Viper1.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BSGMini-00 10 37-part.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:BSGMini-00 10 37-part.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC
Just wanted to let you know I tweaked the formatting and added keep/delete to the comments there to bring it in line with other RfC's (and for clarity). Hopefully you have no objection to that, if you do I apologize in advance, feel free to revert me. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! I was considering putting "delete" when I composed my comment, but as the item seemed to be taking on more of a threaded discussion format, I left it out. Thanks for tidying it up. --Fru1tbat 18:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia! Your test worked, and thank you for reverting or removing it yourself. The best way to do tests in the future would be to use the sandbox. You can look at these pages as well: how to edit a page, the tutorial, and how to write a great article. All of these pages are good places to start. Again, welcome, and I hope that you will like Wikipedia.  Kamope  ·  talk  ·  contributions   12:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you must be confused. I regularly revert vandalism to that page, but certainly was not using the page to experiment. --Fru1tbat 12:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry you're right. Cheers.  Kamope  ·  talk  ·  contributions   22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I have an Internet page blocker (CYBERsitter) on my computer and it blocks certain words, including the URL for MySpace. It's currently installed. I need to know how to remove that certain block (the one of MySpace's URL) only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A&MFan (talk • contribs) 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm not familiar with the software, but I've seen plenty of other edits where myspace or other URLs have been blanked. I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere on the net if it's not obvious in the software's options. --Fru1tbat 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Cars Trivia
I agree with keeping the specious references off the page. Whomever is behind 220.237.181.194 appears to be the main culprit.Skywatcher68 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Abdurahman49
Good job assuming good faith at User talk:Abdurahman49. I was all set to decry the user as a vandal, but when I saw your message, I realized my reaction was a Bad Thing. There could be a good reason for it, and I should not assume malice. The action may look suspicious, but suspicious != malice. I did make a note at WP:AN. Anyway, thanks, good job, keep up the good work. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The user's other edits appeared to be well-intentioned at a quick glance, but the AMG ID removals did concern me. I don't like to see useful/harmless content removed without good reason. Let me know if you find anything else out. --Fru1tbat 15:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Let me first state that currently there is a convention, which you noted, of disambiguating by artist, rather than year. Let me also say that, for reasons I have stated elsewhere, (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs) I am in total disagreement with that convention, and am campaigning to change it. I think it's a terrible way of doing it. And unless I can be convinced otherwise, I am continuing to use the year. -- BRG 13:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:SpongeBobCharacter
You recently edited Template:SpongeBobCharacter for image size parameter. However, when the image is added to the page in question, the parameters you added show up as text and is not rendered. If you take a look at SpongeBob SquarePants (character), you'll see what I mean. I am not familiar enough with template code to be able to figure this out, and I didn't want to just revert your edits. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I checked the page you mentioned, though, and I don't see the text... I checked using two different browsers, and neither of them show anything unusual that I can see. Where do you see the rendered text?
 * Oh, wait, I see the problem now. Actually, the page (SpongeBob SquarePants (character)) has been fixed since you posted this note, I think. The problem was that template instance was being used in a way the template was not intended to be used (the problem was limited to that page only). The image parameter should be just the image name with no markup. If it's used that way, there is no problem (check a version of the page a week or so ago and you'll see what I mean). --Fru1tbat 14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the reply, and thanks for taking the time to check it. I checked it just and and see what you mean. Someone else fixed it in the meanwhile! Thanks again! Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)