User talk:Pharos/Golden Age of Science Fiction

Did You Know
Why did you overwrite Did You KNow with the sort of thing that's meant to be on the daily featured pic section? You might want to revert your changes. Harro5 06:19, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually that was the work of MacGyverMagic, who's sort of in charge of DYK, following some discussion at Talk:Main Page (which you might want to check out). I only changed the wording/presentation.--Pharos 06:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's all so clear now :). Harro5 06:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * You'll forgive my brevity; I've linked the relevant pages in my above message for convenience. The Talk:Main Page discussion has really been the impetus behind this.--Pharos 06:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've changed the header, because it would require constant changing of the main page at weekends each time we go in and out of the weekend. We can't include it on the template because of the required HTML headers on the main page. - Mgm|(talk) 08:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Would it really be so terrible to change the main page twice a week? My point is that it should be labelled 'Today's featured picture' because that's what it is, and the title draws attention to the picture that isn't there with the DYK factoid format.--Pharos 08:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I would prefer the heading could be included in the template, which would make changing it twice a week a lot easier, but the HTML header bug makes that impossible. I guess it could be worse. But don't complain if I forget to edit the main page, okay? :-) - Mgm|(talk) 08:13, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The troll in our midst
In responce to User talk:Casito. 4.174.3.171 is a Dial-up connection from orlando1.level3.net, the ISP that this troll uses, so I agree that it is probably a Musachachado sockpuppet. That being said, speedy delete per author's request dosn't apply to articles created by a sockpuppet, so I think he is still being deceitful in his request. -Casito&#8669;Talk 18:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation
You have all been unwitting participants in a peice of performance art entitled "Wikipedia Project: Spring-Summer 2005". All of this has been a big giant peice of art involving several people throughout North America. Thanks for unwittingly playing your roles to a tee. TheSpottedDogsOrganisation 13:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think your work here has really been quite innovative. In the first act you vandalized yourself, in the second you actually impersonated yourself (quite ground-breaking), and you topped it all off in the third act by making legal threats against yourself.  I must say, though, I didn't find the last two acts as believable as the tragic and self-destructive first.--Pharos 18:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually it was decided to end this portion of the project and we decided to use a bit of bad theatre, but we are going on vacation and we have had enough. As for the edits made by this user, they mostly contain facts and some of the images may have been taken from elsewere and since you guys don't care about copyright it shouldn't bother you. We did borrow images from various websites and we did try to credit them, but the problem with any group effort is knowing what the last person did. And we borrowed this user's account as it has the password of password. Spotteddogsdotorg 23:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ahem
"Vandalistically" is not a word. Comment by User:Kennyisinvisible
 * Um, yes it is. It's even been a word of the day.  I think you're refering, though, to my use of the related word "vandalistic" on User talk:Spotteddogsdotorg.  Please check a dictionary before proceeding to vocabulary "gotcha"s.--Pharos 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

In the news
Sorry about being hasty. Some vandal replaced the Canadian flag with an extremely obscene image. I don't know how to revert images, and so I simply yanked the picture out of the Main Page template until a far better person than me could restore the image. -- (t) (c) 05:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Re: DYK
There's not likely to be a next time, because I'm not among those who feel a need to advertize their new articles immediately after creating it. I gave it a few days intentionally, so that other editors can fix/polish it up, before thinking of ad venues. I see no point in the 72h policy. Interesting facts don't cease to be interesting after three days, do they? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

NYC
''Actually, I didn't really mean to revert the 2nd time, just to put something in the edit summary. I was assuming good faith of course, though someone really concerned about little people would be unlikely to equate them with "midgets". Anyway, that anon has been adding spurious info elsewhere as well.--Pharos 03:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)''
 * Yeah, I wasn't sure of bad faith, so I checked other articles and caught his MJ vandalism. Ahhh, silly vandals.  =) -- BMIComp  (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: DYK (soleus muscle)
Awesome! Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for adding the categories. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Image protection
Thanks for sorting the page protects. Out of interest, you commented that one's protected "at both ends"; how exactly does this work? Shimgray 01:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Clyde Tunnel nomination
I just want to thank you for putting up the DYK nomination for the article! Erath 18:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Galilean moons
I know, it smacks a little bit of pseudoscience. I am by no means convinced that they were known. And, after all, I didn't suggest changing the order of the table, I simply added the factoid in the comments column. The idea is published, as a speculative idea, and it keeps cropping up, but you are right that it doesn't absolutely need to be in the table, it could also be moved to the Galilean moons article (although, fwiiw, the hypothesis is very much to the point of the table, chronology of discovery of solar system bodies). dab (&#5839;) 06:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * yeah, well, the only pre-telescopic, "invisible to the naked eye" discoveries I've ever heard about concern the Galilean moons and Uranus. Anybody who claims Neptune was known to the ancients is of course a kook. I do not know how far below visibility the Galilean moons are at perigee, but it cannot be much. All it took to discover them was a single glance of Galileo's through his shoddy self-made telescope. But, as I said, I am happy to have the hypothesis removed to the main article. dab (&#5839;) 06:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

US & Canada at the Olympics
I'm putting back the edit about Canada's performance at the 2004 Olympics in comparison to that of the US's. Your explanation of the population is flawed since Canada has more than 30 million people and Australia just 20 million, yet the Aussies received 49 Olympic medals. -- Radicalsubversiv2 22:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you give him his username back?
I screwed with this mean person enough since he did not give me the WCAU tape that I wanted from TV News Talk. Can you give him his user name back. I think he learned his lesson! MrPhillyTV 18:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC) It was User talk:Spotteddogsdotorg who did this to me. If you have an old WCAU video tape when they were CBS please help me!

DYK
Don't forget to archive the old entires, I've done it for the last set.--nixie 01:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, old friend for the quick revert of my talk page. Ever since this last book came out, I've been getting a bunch of crazies hanging around my place. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

My User Page
Thank you for reverting Quebeck's vandalism of my user page yesterday. He's blocked now, but I have a feeling he won't stop there. Ryan 17:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

U Thant Island
No problem. Good for a camera newbie, huh! Pacific Coast Highway 22:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Ships of Homeworld
I don't see why. The Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Firefly ships all have their own pages and neither of the last two contain as much ship data as Homeworld does. Furthermore, Relic and fans have based alot of "fluff" around the Homeworld ships and it would take a considerably large webpage to cover all the ships of the three games. Nivenus 20:18, August 3, 2005

On "Fan Stuff"
It was not my intention to say that I was adding fan material to the website. I am only using the cannon material. In addition, I am adding just as much as anybody else, in fact, considerably less information for the ships as others are for similar series'. Take a look at Starfury or X-wing and compare it to Triikor Interceptor. I am not unnecessarily clogging wiki space, at least not outside of the bounds exercised by others. Nivenus 21:57, August 3, 2005

Again on "Fan Stuff" and Wikicities
I have not been using fan material on the Homeworld articles and I have yet to see evidence of this. However, I have put forth a request for a wikicity and am awaiting a yes or no on the answer. If I do recieve a wikicity I will make the articles on the ships briefer and give links to the Homeworld Wiki. If not I'll have to find another solution. Nivenus 10:30, August 4, 2005