User talk:SeanWillard

Welcome to Sean Willard's talk page. Feel free to use this page to, um, talk to me.

In a Mirror, Darkly (Enterprise episode)
re: your question to me, I would have to agree with you, I was unaware of that verse. I would imagine scrapping the reference to Scanner Darkly altogether would be the appropriate action. NickVeys 22:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Commando
First off, thank you for fixing that to have the correct usage of Commando. I haven't used Macs in a very long time.

That said, you needn't have been so aggressive in saying that I broke the meaning; as far as I'm concerned, that was the meaning that was there before, or at least the meaning was unclear. I may have been wrong, but I was only preserving the wrongness. Here's what it said previously:


 * Commando is also the name of a command-line dialog box utility program appearing first in Apple Computer's Macintosh Programmer's Workshop (MPW) and later its A/UX operating system.

The parsing of that order of adjectives implies that Commando is "a command-line (modifier) dialog box utility program (what it is)," just as you might say "ls is a command-line directory-listing program in UNIX." So I thought it was a program you used at the command-line to make dialog boxes. Yes, I clicked on the links to take a quick peek, but I clearly didn't read carefully enough, as I saw something about a GUI interface and so on. SnowFire 21:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Phoenix
Hey, thanks for commenting on my Phoenix page! I will indeed put in a section for Phoenix, AZ. What I've got there is really just a rough outline...I should be actually writing stuff soon. I've been doing research and taking a lot of notes. I've been going a little crazy because every reference says something a little different...there's so many sources, so many versions of the story...I think I've got it down, now.

Well, thanks again, and happy wikiing! ~ Sarabi1701 00:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Chavs
Thanks for that. I'm not one myself (only cos the word didn't exist then) but all my Chav mates over in the UK are mostly into gangster rap. Also, I think there should be a mention of Ali G as the archetypal Chav. I'd attempt something myself but I'm currently nursing a monster hangover. --Piepie (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks on another's work according to your personal views
''' Sean, you may edit just as I may edit but do not demean what I write nor how I write such as "whacky full justificalion" that you placed on the Matthew Fontaine Maury page. You have the right to edit but keep your personal negative comments to yourself. I tend to prefer full justification as seen in books as opposed to edges on the right side not aligned and so I did use full justification but you can and should reword your comments in a mannerable way. Keep the Peace.'''

-- – Brother Officer  Talk  19:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, now, there's no need to shout. There was nothing personal in my comment; it's the justification I called "wacky", not you; and the reason I called it that is that full justification is almost never used on Wikipedia for the main text of an article.  WP:Manual_of_Style says "Use HTML and CSS sparingly and only with good reason".  The fact that you "tend to prefer" full justification is not good reason.


 * Now, now, I preferred that use in that one instance for a good reason and I did use it very "sparingly". The dark letters are for your eyes not to miss - not your ears. Even so that would not have occured had you not been insulting me with your editing. Your negative comment goes immediately back to the person who wrote what you chose to be negative in wording. I am aware of how Wikipedia works and is supposed to work. I also am aware that an "encyclopedia" uses full justification in their articles and Wikipedia is a free "encyclopedia". The fact that I tend to use full justification (sparingly)is a good reason for me when considering articles to look nice --like the paper books, articles, and encyclopedias as opposed to rough and ragged right sides that looks as though someone used a skill saw on it -- and I refer to what I write -- thus that one use of full justification to remedy the situation. I understand Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia is not supposed have full justification. Therefore on Wikipedia I used full justification in one spot, "very sparingly", for a better look to that article. But the point behind this, as stated, is that you used an insulting word. Your use of "whacky" goes straight back to the editor who thought it made the article look better. It had been that way some time before you came along. Refrain from that sort of wording of an editor because we are all here to build and create nice works and yet to be nice to each other and not use such words that will incite other workers (editors). Neither am I criticizing you personally but I am looking at your choice of wording connected to that article. That, sir, is not a necessity. Now let us both get back to work and do something worthwhile. -- – Brother Officer  Talk  05:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not criticizing you personally, only the editing choices you made. Isn't that what editing is all about? We're all here to make this place better.

SeanWillard (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Editing an article, including the Summary, is about not offending another editor with obvious negative wording. It is not necessary nor desirable. Editing on Wikipedia is about creating an article and make it look "encyclopedic" and neat. That is exactly what I did and do. I create an article, watch over it, try to keep vandals away, and do as little chatting as possible so I can continue creating. -- – Brother Officer  Talk  05:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology &c.
Sean, I apologize to you for a mistake that I made. Indeed, I did use too much code in the article we have discussed. I went back and looked at all of it closer, so I was wrong in that and you were right to remove it. The article comes out looking just fine. Still, please watch your wording because you have seen how some people react. Okay, that aside, are you an administrator? I don't think so. So where is one for Wikipedia, I want to get to know one. On an article entitled Philip St. George Cocke I have worked on a fellow placed an image of a man but it is not the correct image for Philip St. George Cocke and he entitled the image Philip St. John Cocke both on his upload and below the image on the Philip St. George Cocke article. I looked at his user page and he has many mistakes shown as erroneous. I don't know why he continues doing that nor why he is even allowed to do that because it causes a lot of work for others to remedy or remove those images. On recall, he had about 19 mistakes with images and he constantly is uploading images. He placed an image on the Philip St. George Cocke article very shortly after I had entered some history on Philip St. George Cocke. If you or an administrator do not see that, and you probably should look at his users page, then I will remove that image. As you've stated and I have stated we are supposed to be working to better Wikipedia together. Is that not what editors do? The article is about Philip St. George Cocke and not whomever Philip St. John Cocke is supposed to be -- if he ever existed at all. P.S. The image uploaded is the best form of vandalism I have seen on Wikipedia because most people don't really know who the images represent. Yet he continues...... Kind Regards, -- – Brother Officer  Talk  03:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, Brother, and in turn I apologize for insulting you.


 * You're a good person, Sean.


 * No, I'm not an admin. I'm not sure how to contact one, but I would start more gradually; perhaps first saying something on this guy's talk page, then on the talk page for PSGC.


 * He already has many negatives on his talk page that have not been taken care of. That is why I wondered where an administrator would be because that situation should be taken care of. It seems to me someone is neglecting his duty as administrator of Wikipedia.


 * Sincere question: how do you know that's not a picture of Philip St. George Cocke, mislabeled? Have you seen pictures of PSGC? (I hope you don't mind if I abbreviate.)  If you have a good public domain image, perhaps you should upload it.  Just by looking at it, I have no idea who the "PSJC" picture is of, though it's certainly a painting rather than a photo, and in my very uninformed opinion the clothing looks possibly older than Civil War era.  Just a wild guess: maybe it's PSGC's father, John Cocke?


 * No, I do not know it isn't an image of Philip St. George Cocke. I went by how it was labeled when uploaded and again beneath the image on the article page. The uploader also did not cite a source. This caused me to look t his talk page and I then found a lot of upload mistakes placed there by whomever. If the uploader knows who it is then he or she should make the clarification and cite the image source.


 * If you're pretty confident that that's not a picture of PSGC, then I would just remove it (as I see you did already).


 * I am confident the uploader created the wrong name with the upload, created it again beneath the image and has multiple problems stated on his talk page about images. That is good enough for me until the source is cited as to where the image came from and who it is. Otherwise it is best to have no image. If Wikipedia starts accepting any image as with that situation then the practice may grow, as with that user. Then Wikipedia cannot be trusted with images or articles and we do not want that. Wiki areas must be as precise as we can get it or it becomes untrustworthy and worthless.


 * Just out of curiosity, are you related to Matthew Fontaine Maury? I hadn't heard of him till recently rereading "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" which mentions him several times.  Interesting guy.
 * Cheers, SeanWillard (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That genealogical connection "won't buy a cup of coffee" as the adage states. (Except in Virginia!) I have accounts elsewhere and one is Chapter 44 from Moby Dick where Herman Melville mentions Matthew Maury in the footnote. In that chapter entitled "The Chart", Ahab is pouring over charts of whale migration routes but they did not exist until Matthew Fontaine Maury, USN, created them. Therefore, Melville used that information that had just been announced in newspapers and had come out in chart form as Melville describes in the footnote at the bottom of that first chapter page. That chapter is describing Matthew at work late into the nights but still keeping the character of Ahab. M F Maury was a prolific writer and worked on an average of 14-16 hours/day. He didn't require a lot of sleep. Matthew F Maury was also in charge of the National Observatory and viewed stars at night for various reasons and one of those reasons was keeping accurate time for this entire nation from his office in Washington D.C. by the stars and a Time Ball lowered at noon for everyone to check their timepieces. I believe you are aware of the article on Wikipedia. Yes, I agree, he was an interesting guy and his imagination and work knew no boundries. He had more projects than he could take care of and was always coming up with newer and more aside from the previous projects. But GOD creates some people like that with Ben Franklin as an example, or Henry Ford, et cetera. In science I learned this is called "The Great Man Theory"
 * Edgar Allen Poe also wrote on M F Maury and he also edited some of M F Maury's newspaper articles in the Southern Literary Messenger.
 * Best Regards, -- – Brother Officer  Talk  22:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks !
Thanks for adding 292 references to the ISS article with just a few characters ! :D Penyulap   ☏  12:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My pleasure! It took me a while to figure out how you removed 292 references with one small edit. :P SeanWillard (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

February 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to A Hole in the World, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Welcome to Wikipedia, DonIago. I've been editing Wikipedia off and on for 13 years now, so I'm not sure who should be welcoming whom. :-) As it happens, I have so far found one published mention of sarcasm in Whedon DVD commentaries (Joss Whedon, A Creative Portrait: From Buffy the Vampire Slayer to The Avengers, by David Lavery), but I see you've removed the Whedon quote entirely, which is not unreasonable. I agree with your suspicion that it was a facetious statement, but it was Whedon's, not mine, and is on record on the DVD commentary. What I wanted most of all to avoid was the implication that Whedon sincerely thought it was funny to kill off Acker, and your solution, though slightly Procrustean, works adequately well. Thanks for your vigilance! Regards, SeanWillard (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No harm in welcoming each other! Sorry if I might have come off as patronizing there, wasn't my intention! I think the problem of suggesting that one Whedon quote may have been facetious without attribution for that specific quote being facetious, besides the fact that we're applying our own interpretation, is that it opens the door to questioning all of his commentary-related quotes. Glad you're okay with my decision to excise it. Happy to discuss at the chat for the article if you have second thoughts. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)