User talk:Sergay/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

 Good luck, and have fun.

Biggest Loser
Hey I noticed you made a few edits to the article for The Biggest Loser Australia (Season 3) and thought you might like to add to the dispute on the discussion page. User:Josh710 keeps reverting edits and removing information, adding his own information which is poorly written and messing up the consistency set out by the previous two seasons. I can't seem to explain clearly that the article is being messed up. Do you know the process to get it sorted out civilly? Cheers. Peter (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Twilight
Don't worry, I'm expanding it with MTV cites at the moment. It's just a matter of using verifiable sources to narrow the scope so we don't indiscriminately list every single role. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I wanted to take a moment here to explain. There are many movie websites that list a multitude of roles in a film indiscriminately.  I've cited news sources because generally, if they're talking about certain roles, they would be more prominent than someone who will only be in the background.  We link to IMDb for the full cast information, so we try to narrow the scope here.  Also, it's a good idea to use simple lists for Cast sections instead because they can be edited with more ease and expanded with prose.  Wikitables are too limiting to accomplish that. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, WP:MOSFILM encourages prose. A personal example I've done is Sunshine (2007 film).  Also, we can't be sure that the characters will be adapted faithfully.  They could be either in the background or written out completely.  The last example I recall is the exclusion of The Walker in The Seeker, see The Seeker (film).  Obviously, we should hope that it's faithful, but sometimes changes are made for conventional and creative reasons.  I think I've exhausted the online sources I could find for supporting the article at this point.  I'll check Newsbank for some print sources covering any additional detail a little bit later. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the film poster. I think if you still see the book poster, you need to reload that particular web page in its entirety. Just go to the article, hold Ctrl, and click Refresh. This will do a "hard" refresh, completely reloading the page. This is because the book poster is probably cached on your computer, so when you do the "hard" refresh, it will look for the image as it exists online instead of on your computer. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange, now I see the problem you're talking about, and the "hard" refresh does not help. (It showed since another editor tried to put a different file of the poster image in the article.)  I'm on a friend's computer, so I can't do anything with images.  I contained another editor, Grandpafootsoldier, who often uploads poster images, to see if he can't upload a new and separate file of the new poster image. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert
Hello, I was wondering about this revert of yours. in the edit summary you say it "doesn't belong on a character page". Does this mean it belongs on some other page? Thanks for your time. --Angel Alice ♠ (talk ) 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. :) Thanks. --Angel Alice ♠ (talk ) 01:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject The Office (US)
Hi Sergay. I've seen that you've done some work with the articles pertaining to The Office, and I just wanted to inform you of The Office WikiProject, a project dedicated to improving Office articles. If you have any questions about it, you can ask on my talk page. Mastrchf (t/c) 17:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Eclipse
No problem! I've been meaning to do one for all the Twilight books that didn't have one, so I figured I'd start with Eclipse. Thanks again. ~ Bella   Swan ? 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just so's you know (redux)
Hey, I'm just glad that you would like to discuss this instead of us resorting to some sort of edit war.

Perhaps we can arrive at the proverbial 'happy medium'? To that end, I shall provide my response to the problems you have, and we shall discuss from there onward until we can come to a point at which we can agree to disagree. Sound good?

1) The problem is, a lack of research on the part of a storyteller IS lazy, what with information being so readily accessible. And it is a negative thing for any person who wishes to tell a story to not do at least some degree of research.  As I had stated, one of the three basic rules of storytelling is 'truth.'  In the words of Jim Loehr, "The ‘truth’ rule is that the story you tell should conform to known facts. Ask yourself: if the story is a work of fantasy, a lie you tell yourself, reflecting your biases and prejudices; or if you are sidestepping that parts of the story that are obviously untrue because they’re just too painful to confront."  Basically, if you're going to tell a story involving things that are known, you should either tell the story based on your own concepts of what is known or be able to relay to the audience of why you are not including them.  But in either case, you ought to know what it is that you are telling a story about. ('You' in this blurb, of course, referring to the one seeking to tell a story.) As it stands personally, I could care less about the differences applied, so long as they're logical in how they are used, but that's an entirely different discussion altogether. However, the choice of wording I used for that sentence is simply an exact approximation. Whether it is viewed negatively or positively is a matter of personal connotation. If you can think of a further neutral phrasing for it, do tell.

2) I'd removed 'traditional' because it really isn't 'traditional' vampires hers vary from, but the majority of vampires throughout fiction, both past and present. If you can find a term to better reflect that then simply removing the word altogether, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you.  (You should know, though, that I tend to be a stickler when it comes to terminology. But I'm not entirely unreasonable. ;) )

On the matter of weaknesses, though, she did remove all of their weaknesses. And while they can be destroyed somehow, the manner by which Meyer portrays them as being able to be destroyed is inconsistent. She says that they have to be cut up and burnt (or something to that extent), but their bodies are so tough that they cannot be cut - and being burnt is the background behind Jane's ability. So perhaps, to that end, it could be said that they have no known weaknesses? (Just so you know, I wasn't the one to put mention of weaknesses or lack thereof where it's placed..however, a regard for weaknesses is a deviation from legend, so perhaps that's why it was placed where it was.)

3) The addition of the "this is not backed by scientific data or research" was the only change I'd made to that sentence.

4) While, yes, it is their only source of food, it still should be pointed out that they would not be able to starve to death, as that is a deviation from legend. This would be a point for discussion of chosen semantics.

And with all that, I put the ball in your court. I'm not an unreasonable fellow. Perhaps when all this is done, we could find something to talk about that we can agree upon. Sorry for the long reply. Xulicote (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If Jim Loehr doesn't count for you as a credible basis, perhaps Tom Clancy, who said, "The difference between reality and fiction? Fiction has to make sense."?

Yes, she chose to have her 'vampires' be different. Yes, there's nothing wrong with that. But there are boundaries which can be crossed. There's more to being a vampire besides being dead and consuming blood. Actually, there are various creatures in mythos that consume blood, and Meyer's 'vampires' aren't actually dead but simply, 'frozen in time.'

I don't know if you noticed, but the small section in which she 'mentioned' the 'typical' vampire traits felt as though it were tacked on. Like it had been the idea of her publisher to add it, just to be 'safe.' This seemingly 'tacked on' aspect of what 'research' she might have done after the fact may play into why she seems to be inconsistent on various ideas about her own 'vampires.'  Nevermind the fact that she even says she doesn't plot anything out or really make an effort to plan.

Oh, you might want to re-check the source again. While, yes, the interviewer asked about the Host, which Meyer wrote as a "science fiction for those who don't like science fiction" (wtf?), Meyer's answer is her thoughts about fantasy in general, which Twilight falls under the category of.

But yes, your wording suffices on her admitting to doing little to no research. There had been an interview where she had directly admitted to not doing research on vampires before writing Twilight, and I've been searching for that interview for ages. But it seems that she's had it removed. The current source will still work, but if I can ever find the original, I'll be sure to tack it on, as well. Just to be on the safe side. Xulicote (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source: http://chbookstore.qwestoffice.net/fa2006-08.html  It requires a bit of scrolling to get to. I'll add more if I find them. Xulicote (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * shugs* In either case, I did provide a source where she mentions not having researched them.  She claims a 'familiarity' without having read anything more than a few of Anne Rice's works, but nothing more than that.  So that phrase can be altered to "Meyer admits to having not researched" or whatever it was you'd said.  Would you like the honors?

I guess there are just certain things that go along with being dead that her 'vampires' lack..such as not having super speed. If the body were 'dead' as she tries to claim, but operates only on a venom instead of blood, they would be having trouble moving at all, let alone at the speeds she portrays them to have. Not to mention that the body wouldn't able to move at all due to rigormortis if there's nothing providing sustenance to the muscles.. I guess this more goes under the science aspect, though.

One question, though. What could the 'vampires' have access to that could be used to cut each other up that humans do not? If anything, the 'vampires' seem to rely on humans for technology. So then if humans can't cut the vampires, the vampires would not be able to cut themselves. It just doesn't have any sort of consistency in thinking.

I'm aware that Jane's power is used for torture. But Jane obtained her power by being burned at the stake. And yet she's still around? Seems that burning doesn't do anything to them after all.

And I agree that if they have no weaknesses, they'd live forever. But they're not shown to actually have any. We're told that they do, but the ones we're told just don't add up. Perhaps the wording could be this: "Edward states that they do have a few weaknesses, but what they could be remains largely unknown." Xulicote (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Andrea
I'm changing what I wrote last time, I feel that it all got a bit out of hand. I apologise again, not just for what I did but for what everyone else is still doing. The stuff that was personally about you is unacceptable. I am actually really impressed by how well you managed to remove anything unnecessary. I fully understand that it's your job and I support you in what you're doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.168.216 (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism revert
No problem. I blocked and  indefinitely, and  for 31 hours. Please feel free to report these users to ANI or to leave a note on my talk page in the future. We don't put up with this type of nonsense. Babx111's last edit is enough to block an account indefinitely. Keep an eye on the acccounts editing the article and watch out for similarities. If necessary we can make a list and have a checkuser run to see if these are sockpuppets. I don't know why, but you seem to have attracted some admirers. I have semi-protected Twilight (series) for a week. Don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or need help with your admirers in the future. KnightLago (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Twilight
I just wanted to apologize to you on behalf of the Twilight community. I, as well as many others, think that what several Twilight fans are doing on Wikipedia is disrespectful and downright rude. I appreciate your diligence in doing your best to keep the pages up to date with accurate, well-written information. Keep up the good work. Not all of us appreciate the vandalism that is being done.

Potch 78 (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Pot

Twilight Images
It seems you´ve done an awesome job on your own. Ever since the copyright templates were regulated for use every time you upload an image, it´s made copyrights a lot easier, so congrats on a job well done! ~ Bella   Swan ? 01:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Copying the template is exactly what I would have done, but I would have copied it from the New Moon cover image. ;) Thanks and good job. ~ Bella   Swan ? 12:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this has to do with Twilight stuff, I thought I'd just keep it under the same heading. Anyways, do you think it's time we at least requested semi-protection for Edward Cullen (Twilight), or should we wait until things heat up a bit more? ~ Bella   Swan ? 15:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Took them long enough. ~ Bella   Swan ? 12:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello Sergay, I noticed that you revert quite a bit of vandalism. I was wondering, would you like me to grant your account rollback rights? Rollback will help you revert vandalism more easily. Just remember, however, that rollback should only be used to revert vandalism, and that misuse of the tool, such as using it to revert good-faith edits or to revert-war, will lead to it being removed. Tell me what you think. Thanks. Acalamari 21:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rollback granted. :) As I said, remember to use it for reverting vandalism only. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 22:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism not properly reverted
Hi there. One of your actions is mentioned at Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I'm not sure how aware you are of how to spot that sort of vandalism, so I've left this note to everyone who failed to spot it. Would you be able to comment over there if you have time? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AliceCullen.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AliceCullen.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:RosalieHale.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:RosalieHale.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject:Twilight
Do you think that it would be worth it to create a Twilight WikiProject? I'd be willing to start one, I just wanted a second opinon on whether or not it's notable enough, or if the articles would benefit from that sort of project. ~ Bella   Swan ? 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think right now, I have the meat of everything done, I'm just kind of putting it all together. I've been spending most of my time on categories (noooo.....!), but thankfully I've finished all of them. All I'm going to do is put up some other subpages that I've created to the task force, and work out any other kinks. The only thing I can think of (for all fans to do) is to get the Twilight article to a GA status, where it should be. It's the very first thing we should be working on. Thanks for all your help on the Twilight articles, and happy editing! ~ Bella   Swan ? 19:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Melissa Rosenberg
Thanks. That was rather silly of me... and rather clever of you! :) — 97198 (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :)
For this. I should have looked into it when I saw it pop up on the Watchlist. Thanks for correcting something I missed. Ic eUnshattered  [ t ] 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! Andrea  ( talk ) 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Rachelle Lefèvre
Please see my comments: here. Dismas |(talk) 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Pie, pi :)

 * Thank you so much!! It was delicious, AND it brightened my day! Muchly appreciated. :D Andrea  ( talk ) 23:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) With all that work over the Twilight pages (honestly, being nice to the fangirls is destroying my sanity...), you deserve a sweet or two. Ic eUnshattered  [ t ] 21:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks
Hello, and thank you for fixing the Breaking Dawn article. I was trying to fix some vandalism by the IP person but it didn't work right. I think my edit got mixed up with someone else's in the same minute. Sorry for the mistake. LovesMacs (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was very surprised when I looked at the history and I wasn't sure if I did something wrong. Thank you again. LovesMacs (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A little something you deserve

 * You're definitely welcome. Keep up the great work, even if does get you down sometimes. :) — 97198 (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with stuff on Twilight pages?
Today I checked my watchlist, and an IP posted these comments on the List of Twilight characters talk page. Most of it wasn't outright vandalism (apart from the headline texts stuff), so I wasn't totally sure about what to do. I answered the two new sections that the anon created as civilly as possible, and rm'ed the headline text testing-ish stuff (whatever you call it). Should I have deleted the comments and explained on the IP's personal talk page?

I know I like to bombard people with questions, sorry. The IP appeared to be as a fangirl type person acting in...um, good faith. Do you think I should have done anything differently? Ic eUnshattered  [ t ] 16:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, never apologize for asking questions! I think you handled it well, in the same way that I would have. Comments like that shouldn't be deleted, since they weren't vandalizing (good you removed the test portions though), and weren't really treating it like a forum, because they were (mostly) discussing the article. And you were probably more patient in your replies than I would have been. I say job well done! Andrea  ( talk ) 19:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Later note: "Lol" moment for me. I was like, "Sheesh, I've got to go to RPP again?" But then when I remembered, -bam-. Thanks for getting to RPP for us. So have a....


 * Thank you muchly! :D It's sad how happy I was when Edward's page was given protection for 6 months. Totally made my day. Andrea  ( talk ) 20:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up
Just dropping a note to let you know I nominated Edi Gathegi at T:TDYK after expanding it a little more (put your name down as a co-nom). Cheers, — 97198 (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problemo! Thought it was only fair ;) — 97198 (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you should protect the Stephenie Meyer page against vandals
I would think you should protect the Stephenie Meyer page and not allow people to edit it right now because of all the vandalism people put on that page.

You can do that, right? Protect it so nobody else can edit the page without permission?

I think that would be a good thing to do. 67.168.17.252 (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sergay is not an WP:Administrator. There are several types of protection, I think that the appropriate one (the one that's been performed on a number of Twilight-related pages) is semi-protection, which prevents IP addresses like you, for example, or autoconfirmed users from editing. See WP:Protection policy for more info. I'll check the page. If I determine that there's been enough vandalism to go to WP:RPP, then I'll do that. Andrea - 'scuse my intrusion ^^ I<font color="#9CBCC9">c eUnshattered  [ t ] 21:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Later - well, there hasn't been that much. I've seen worse. I'll go to RPP for the sake of it, but I have doubts if it'll get protected. <font face="Gill Sans MT">I<font color="#9CBCC9">c eUnshattered  [ t ] 21:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha, thanks for fielding that one for me ;) (but will this person check my talk page for their answer?). I don't think there has been enough vandalism to warrant protection right now either, but if we get it then it's a bonus. Andrea  ( talk ) 22:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, maybe I should post a quick message on the IP's talk page directing them here. <font face="Gill Sans MT">I<font color="#9CBCC9">c eUnshattered  [ t ] 18:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Alice Cullen...?
Your opinions on this? AfD? Icy // ♫ 22:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, good find. It should be redirected to List of Twilight characters. It was decided a few months ago that only Bella and Edward (and debatably, Jacob) were notable enough to warrant their own articles. Andrea  ( talk ) 02:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And done. Andrea  ( talk ) 02:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Icy  // ♫ 02:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No prob! Thanks for pointing it out. Andrea  ( talk ) 02:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Twilight plot
Sergay, you're awesome for being able to condense the plot in such little time. I may integrate more information later on this week if that's okay with you, but you did an excellent job! Cheers! – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  23:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. I know that when I first saw that long edit, I winced painfully because I didn't know what to make of it and it just didn't feel right. But, it did help pave the way for expanding the plot section (now that the film has been released). I didn't want to overstay my welcome and come in, fists flying, undoing edits left and right but I was confident that an established editor would take care of it. Glad to know I wasn't wrong. Look forward to working with you and I'll keep you updated. The project page is here if you care to keep on eye on it. – Ms. Sarita  <sup style="color:#0000FF;">Confer  00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Your username
Are you lesbian by any chance? Just wondering... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.206.237 (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)