User talk:SilvaStorm/Archive 2

''This archive is for discussion before March 19th, 2007. To view the current talk page, please go here''

Sorry.
I'm sorry. I wrote that 'Not in Portland' artical before Carlton Cuse confirmed it. By the way, are you the SilvaStorm from Lostpedia? --'' J  a  m  e  s   W. '' 01:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Suffolk serial killer page
Hello. I noticed that you moved the subject page from "Suffolk" to "Ipswich". Firstly could I recommend that you discuss these significant edits on the talk page first as a large number of editors are contributing to the article in question and no doubt would like to voice their opinions on what the article should be called. Secondly, when moving a page you must ensure that any double redirects are changed, see here for the pages that needed to be changed. Cheers! Budgiekiller 08:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ?The UK media is calling the killer the "Suffolk Strangler". --Dweller 08:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is common practice to discuss moving pages before just doing it, it is polite and considerate to other editors. If you read the talk page then you'll see that a lot of discussion had already taken place about the naming.  It was decided that until more information became available we wouldn't change the name again.  And I need to re-iterate, if you do move a page, ensure that you fix all the double redirects.  Finally, none of the bodies were found in Ipswich, they were found in Suffolk, so please be careful before making such changes. Cheers!  Budgiekiller 08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, when using your customised signature, you should use the "subst:" beforehand so you're not actually putting the template on other user's pages. Cheers!  Budgiekiller 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI I've now fixed all the double redirects. Budgiekiller 09:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sig templates
About your signature, you're using a template in it and that's pretty much discouraged, see WP:SIG. There are very good reasons as to why we don't include templates in signatures, and it's not a good idea to bypass this and include them anyways. Just thought I'd let you know. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See here for all the pages you've added a template to, instead of a valid signature. As I (and other editors have) suggested to you before, leaving these templates in a number of places isn't recommended.  Cheers!  Budgiekiller 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a template, and you can see that as it's listed at the bottom of the page when you edit a page with your sig on it. You're supposed to substitute it to leave the markup language behind instead of the template.  Examples from other editors using sigs correctly  leaving the markup behind (all from User talk:Budgiekiller/Archive 4):


 * 1) Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  which substitutes as Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs).
 * 2) H ig hway Grammar Enforcer!  which substitutes as H ig hway Grammar Enforcer!.
 * 3)   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    which becomes   Th  e Tr ans hu  man  ist    .


 * There are hundreds of examples of this all over Wikipedia. Cheers!  Budgiekiller 08:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, there's one example here on your very own talk page. Hope this helps!  Budgiekiller 08:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's not bothering me, it's just bad for Wikipedia - as suggested by User:Ned Scott, you should read WP:SIG where it suggests not using templates in your signature and under Preferences where it also advises against the use of templates. Use the raw wiki markup in your preferences.  That should do the trick.  Cheers!  Budgiekiller 08:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Borat soundtrack pagemove
Howdy, leaving a note here as the edit summary field is too small to contain an explanatory note for my revert of your move. Both GunnarRene and I moved the page back to its original title as there had previously been a discussion about the title on the talk page, which resulted in a no consensus decision. Lacking a consensus, the convention is to leave the page at its original title. You can, of course, reopen discussion on the talk page – it's entirely possible that a consensus can be found in time. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 12:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages
I noticed you moved the Steve Wright (suspect) page without discussion. It is common practice to discuss moving pages before just doing it, it is polite and considerate to other editors. If you read the talk page then you'll see that a lot of discussion had already taken place about the naming. Join in there, and once a consensus is reached, by all means use the move function. Cheers! Budgiekiller 09:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Uhh...but his name is Steven Wright...so unless you want to look stupid, I suggest you leave it. --SilvaStorm

Hello! You'll note that if you read the discussion page that there is still some discussion over his name. I don't mind looking stupid as long as I edit politely and don't move pages without ever discussing it. Please try to be civil. Glad to see you fixed your signature, by the way! Cheers! Budgiekiller 09:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And judging by the comment from the user above, this isn't the only article you've moved without any form of discussion. Please try to remain civil.  Budgiekiller 09:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, look at the talk page for the article. There is still some discussion over the name of the suspect so until it's resolved, and by all means join in with the debate, the page should not be moved.  Editors acting in an uncivil fashion looks worse for Wikipedia than a reasonable, well sourced debate that reaches a consensus before making rash and drastic changes.  Cheers!  Budgiekiller 09:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Peabody award
The Peabody award is somewhat hard to win and a great honor to win. That is why it should be included. --Maitch 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Lostpedia.
Hay, what's up. I actually have a question about lostpedia. Is something up with the site? Because for the last few weeks i haven't been able to get onto it. --'' J  a  m  e  s   W. '' 03:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's okay. Thank's. -- J  a  m  e  s   W .  14:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: The Man from Tallahassee
Sorry, but I think you're mistaken. I created The Man From Tallahassee after it was officially confirmed by ABC. I could not find another page with this title, but I obviously didn't look hard enough. You had created the same page three days before mine after the Podcast. I have not, however, made any redirects - if you look at the edit history or my contributions, you'll see that I have only edited the page I made and not the page that you made. Anyway, it's sorted now. S  e   rgeantBolt  (t,c) 16:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving pages (2)
While I'm sure your intentions are good, please discuss your page moves before actually implementing them. Lost is a fairly popular TV show, and is therefore a very popular article. As such, it is necessary to have collaboration on potentially controversial actions. In addition to this, please read the move tutorial that shows the correct way to move pages. If you simply create a redirect, the entire history of the original page is lost. Thanks! Shadow1 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right... cut and paste moves like you did here are not the correct way to go about this and create more work for admins to clean up. If you want to move something to a namespace that is occupied, please request an admin to help.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23] 01:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding this comment, nobody "owns" a Wikipedia article (see WP:OWN). You gain no credit whatsoever for creating an article - it is no different to any other edit made.  We are all here to make an encyclopedia, not gain credit for it.  The closest Wikipedia gets to credit is Bounty board.   x42bn6  Talk 11:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you do not gain credit for creating articles. If, say, the article becomes a good article or featured article, you might be happy.  Then ask yourself: who will credit you?  If in terms of personal gain, what do you gain by edit-warring and moving to credit yourself with a started article, when Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia where everything is meant for the best, not a single editor's view?  Look at Requested articles.  Take one and create it and help turn it into a good/featured article.  Then you will gain some personal satisfaction.  Don't take it personally if editors override your work - after all, it never was yours.   x42bn6  Talk 11:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat it... it is just a better idea to get an admin to help with any moves that involve content going from one namespace to another namespace that is already occupied.--Isotope23 14:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some pages I have created - error
Just read your updated list, and would like to say that I created the original page for Episode 3.14 of Lost "Expose" (or whatever name you want to refer to it as), and it says so in the original page's history too.--Animé Dan 15:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck getting him to change it. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the correction on your user page. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving pages (3)
Please discuss page moves before doing them, don't just move a page without even mentioning it on the talk page, as you did with Ben Linus. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Lost stations
Something is very wrong. Very, very wrong. The templates are apparently broken, the page returns something like this:

"Five stations have been seen by viewers so far. The names of two of these, the Swan and the Pearl, are given by DHARMA orientation films. The location and name of the Swan can also be found on the map featured in "". The location of the Pearl is given by the map without naming it: a dotted circle with a "?" in it, surrounded by the other stations. The names and locations of two others, the Arrow and the Staff, can be found in the map. The Hydra is the fifth station seen by viewers but is not identified by name on the map. A sixth station, the Flame, is named on the map but has not yet been seen.

The following stations are listed by station number. Stations with an unknown station number will be listed in order of appearance."

Also, I replaced the templates temporarily, as someone has filled the templates with "Removed due to Lostopedia licensing violations" text, and I wanted the article to look properly until the situation could be rectified. Mikael GRizzly 07:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit the comments of other users, particularly in ways that make them seem "wrong". If this thread is taking up too much space on your talk page, just move it to your talk archive.  --Minderbinder 13:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, it is unacceptable to edit the comments of others (if you don't want them on your talk page, just archive instead). This is considered vandalism, please don't do it again or you may be blocked for it.  --Minderbinder 15:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not change the content of other people's comments. This is considered vandalism.--63.80.194.19 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lost episode template
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Template:Ep. See Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Your original contributions are welcome. Lostpedia uses the CC-Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 license, which prohibits use of its content in Wikipedia. &mdash;dgies tc 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually modified the template substantially so it wasn't a direct copy. Please let us maintain a good relationship. -- Silva  Storm  
 * That's not what I heard from the people at Lostpedia. Even if you modified what you took from there, that still violates the "no derivative works" clause of their copyright. I'm not upset, I just want you to be more careful of copyright.  &mdash;dgies tc 08:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of Image:Lost-Tom.jpg
I see you uploaded this image as fair use and tagged its predecessor for deletion as superseded by a higher quality version. The problem is that right on the fair use template it says "... web-resolution screenshots ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement." While the image you uploaded may be technically superior, it does not qualify as fair use because it is so high quality it could compete with the copyright holder's ability to sell the picture. In general, very high resolution fair use images are tagged with fairusereduce to reduce their quality to the point where they are unsuitable for infringing use, but still useful to the encyclopedia. &mdash;dgies tc 09:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you change my picture on Tom (Lost)? I gave you my reason (User talk:Thedemonhog), and meanwhile, your image was deleted.  Now you have reuploaded my image but under your name.  --thedemonhog 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to User talk:Minderbinder
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Will (Speak to Me/Breathe)(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash) 11:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Untitled 17th episode of Lost season 3
An editor has nominated Untitled 17th episode of Lost season 3, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 20:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)