User talk:Tim!/Archive 7

Calton
User:Calton made, what appears to me and a few others, as a VERY offensive racial slur in a recent edit he made. Here is the link : he has also been making a lot of uncivil statements in his recent deletion edit discussions. Please advise. TruthCrusader 17:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The link is correct. The expression "Buckwheat" is a highly offensive racial slur against African-Amercians.TruthCrusader 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and just incase there is any doubt that it is a slur:

   TruthCrusader 18:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone who was actually offended -- as opposed to User:TruthCrusader, who is merely trolling for a fight -- I'll pay attention. Until then, I'll use whatever language I feel is appropriate to whatever situation, and continue to give TruthCrusader the consideration he deserves -- which is hovering around zero and likely to go lower. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am offended by ALL racial slurs...and I do not appreciate the profanity and uncivil remarks you have left on my talk page. Wikipedia is for civility and racial harmony (in theory anyway) and your use of langiage, especially the racial slur you hurled at another user, has no place here. TruthCrusader 07:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your lack of reading comprehension and sudden assumption of hypersensitivity is not my problem. --Calton | Talk 07:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that you continue to make uncivil remarks leaves me with no alternative be to request an admin to intervene. I am sorry you cannot discuss anything without being civil. TruthCrusader 11:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Calton sez: "If someone who was actually offended -- as opposed to User:TruthCrusader, who is merely trolling for a fight -- I'll pay attention."  I was offended, so there ya go. Also, what you wrote above doesn't technically make sense, so don't go around insulting other people's reading skills. 24.224.158.166 06:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Cats rename in interwiki templates
Why do I imagine I hear some people that fancy short names screaming? 

re your close here: ''The result of the debate was rename to Wikipedia navigation templates and Wikipedia categories equalized with Wikimedia Commons categories Tim! 08:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)''

I was a little surprised by the sweeping rename on the above, as we really didn't discuss the names form, per se, save to agree the first was defininitely badly named, which you've retained. ... Ooopsie... I think 'usage notes' crashed your BOT apparently1.... also similar nesting effects on some of the others. which explains why Category:WikiP equalized with Commons Cats isn't empty either, I'd infer.
 * 1) Consequently, I'm not sure category: navigation template --->>> Category:Wikipedia navigation templates isn't going to confuse someone somewhere along the way, but since the 'Wikipedia' there works and was not indicating 'Wikipedia:', as I started to ask, I'll presume the Category:WikiP equalized with Commons Cats is indeed going to become so long winded as to be category:Wikipedia categories equalized with Wikimedia Commons categories !
 * 2) This should merely require updating the 'commnonscatX' templates, which I'll start, leaving the category for you to create

(cur) (last) 16:00, 24 June 2006 Cydebot m (Robot - Moving category WikiP equalized with Commons Cats to Wikipedia categories equalized with Wikimedia Commons categories per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 15.) (cur) (last) 15:59, 24 June 2006 Cydebot m (Robot - Moving category Navigation templates to Wikipedia navigation templates per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 15.)

Category:Wikipedia navigation templates is showing a lot of 'real categories' from the templates becoming unbalanced as well due to the nesting issues on the BOT changes. I'll fix things up, across the board since I wrote them. When Category:WikiP equalized with Commons Cats is empty and things are fixed, I'll tag it with {dbcatempty} so it will properly vanish too. Good thing I've got a little time today! Best regards // Fra nkB 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * re: The bot is actually run by User:Cyde. Tim! 21:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whomever owns it, runs it, or whatever, it didn't pass the course in advanced nesting of (wikimarkup) HTML structures... I'm continuing (barely started earlier on the commons side) fixups now. Shrug. C'est le vie. Best regards, // Fra nkB 22:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Closing of the CfD Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad
I noticed, that you closed the CfD with the remark "no consensus to completely delete". I've counted 19 Delete votes. OTOH you call the result of the debate was rename, which has got 20 votes. Is this how a Wikipedia consensus works? Majority by one single vote? Raphael1 12:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about mediating the issue until the editors can agree on a decision? IMHO the editors who voted for "Delete" had some very good reasons to do so. Your decision alienates them and will probably result in many following CfD disputes. Raphael1 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO Wikipedians should build consensus through polite discussion and negotiation, instead of making decision through voting. Raphael1 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry!
Hey Tim, I was correcting some grammar in Doctor Who buyt the side table went a bit awry, for some reason, just letting you know so you can fix it.

Moo!

James Random>< Leave Trolley Here

Perhaps you could help.
I was just trying to change the

Starring: Various, currently -

Currently Starring - In order to make it less confusing. :) James Random 16:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)>< You know its true!

Please don't undo categorisation work
The categorisation I am doing is in line with consensus, which is very clearly that people are cross-categorised by occupation and nationality. Picking the odd one at random to reverse is disruptive and a waste of your own time as someone is sure to reverse your efforts in the long run, even if I don't notice. Chicheley 19:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!
even if it was about a year late hehe... first thing anyone's stuck on my talk page though! :) Xmoogle 14:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sally Geeson
I see you are an administrator, and you focus on television articles, so I thought I'd come to you with this. User:Fitztip keeps adding Bless This House DVD availablity info on to the page of Sally Geeson, and although I have said it is irrelevant to her page (its on the Bless This House page), he keeps adding it. He is also adding POV comments (see ), and when I delete them he calls me a "self rightous censor"! He won't stop, and any help would be appreciated. Thanks --Berks105 09:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Danny Webb
The reason I put the article at Danny Webb (film actor) rather than Danny Webb (actor) is that there's another actor called Danny Webb already with an article (Danny Webb (Emmerdale actor)), so Danny Webb (actor) should really point at the disambiguation page. I agree "film actor" doesn't really cover it — can you suggest a better title? — sjorford++ 18:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Question :)
The Time Lord article says The Doctor can percieve all possible futures, but it doesn't go into much detail. I've only been watching since The Christmas Invasion, so I'm no Doctor Who expert. I'm more of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer man. Can you explain this to me? Is he or is he not precognitive to some extent? Thank you. Zythe 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help....
....on moving. It is not a case that arises very often (for me, anyway), and whilst I had read that page before, obviously I had forgotten it. Marc Shepherd 22:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dad's Army Character infobox
I love the template you created and therefore I have placed it on all the Dad's Army character pages. I have also placed images in infobox for all the pages. --Mollsmolyneux 21:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea --Mollsmolyneux 21:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tim! It's only a suggestion, but I was wondering whether it would be useful if the link on the top of this infobox directed to the List of Dad's Army characters instead of the category. I'll leave it up to you, though. Thanks! Bob 18:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Radio episodes
Hi Tim! I was just wondering what your opinion on writing plots for each radio episode is. I have proposed on the project page that instead of writing new pages for each episode, that it would be perhaps more interesting and productive to add the main differences in the radio plots in a separate section on the TV pages. Thus, it would avoid page duplication and would maybe make it more interesting to see what Snoad and Knowles did to the original scripts to prepare them for radio. Just wondering what you think, really. Thanks! Bob 18:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Stand by comment
I have no intention of telling lies. The fact is that the proposed new category showed that the person did not know what they were doing. It was factually wrong, as wrong as creating a category called American prime ministers or Kings of the United States. If it is wrong, and based on a fundamental mistake, I say that and will continue to say that. If it is obvious that the person who created the category did not do what they were doing that, I will say that. They deserve to have an honest reaction and be told that they have made a mistake. It is only by telling them that they have made a clear error and so obviously didn't know in that context what they were doing that they will learn from the mistake. It was not a personal attack. It was a statement of demonstrable fact. Hopefully from the discussion they will have learnt what errors not to make, and what a category worded that way means and implies. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if you would be so kind as to help me...?
Hello! I found you through Wikiproject International Law. Between that and seeing how many articles you've worked on relating to international courts and law, I'm really hoping you could provide some aide on a relatively new law-related article in dire need of a less U.S.-centric focus (though citations for existing court cases noted would also be of great assistance as well, of course).

To be absolutely exact: The article in question is Legal issues with fan fiction, and it's primarily (meant to be) concerned with how international copyright law and trademark law affect the production and release of various types of fan fiction (which is nowadays defined as derivitive works, usually unauthorized). At the moment, again, it is very U.S.-centric, and could use some working over to include more information - basic information, even, would be of great help - for how non-U.S. copyright law may affect the aforementioned activities. As it is now, all we have is a decent section regarding Japanese law/custom towards self-published derivitive works, and a VERY vague reference to Russian copyright law being "lax at best".

Any help whatsoever (if possible) would be greatly appreciated. :) Runa27 21:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Great! Hopefully, you can find something add-able. :D Glad to hear from you so quickly! Runa27 22:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternate universe
It's not an Americanism as such, although it may have originated in American science fiction (no great feat, since American SF is much more dominant in the field). Even if it started out as an Americanism, it has become standard use in science fiction jargon in general. Even in the OG forums people are referring to AltJackie or AltPete, not Parallel Jackie or Parallel Pete, so the use of (parallel universe) does not reflect general usage. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it's not "alternate" as an adjective, it's "alternate universe", a noun phrase. See the OED citation here. Brian Aldiss uses it in Billion Year Spree, and he's a UK sf writer. Interzone is a UK sf magazine and it uses it, as well. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got no quarrel with and am not changing it on the Pete Tyler (parallel), etc. My only concern is that the reason being cited for changing it from alternate to alternative is a dubious one, given the etymology of the phrase. Anyway, I've raised it on Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Doctor Who to try and figure out a consisent use of the term for the future, if need be. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories for deletion
Yesterday I accidentally erased a whole bunch of content via this edit. Today I restored the content I erased. Since you were the person affected by this, please make sure that your votes are correct. My apologies for all the trouble. Balcer 13:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Somnabot's subpages
These were tagged db-author by mistake: see my User:Somnabot, and User:Wiki alf's talk pages for details. It seems you redeleted them before I could detag them. Could they be undeleted please? (I have no intention of starting a wheel war, but this whole mess is obviously just a mistake.) --ais523 18:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:B084 nowhereplace01 big.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:B084 nowhereplace01 big.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 17:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Star Trek fans
I am very sad that renominated this for deletion. Especially since it had been nominated and retained before. Unfortunately, I did not notice it unitl today. There are certain people, especially Gabriel Koerner and Bjo Trimble who are really only notable for their fandom. These are the people who should be in the cat, although alot of junk got put in there.

&mdash;Jo nMo ore  00:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Cricket Match
As you said The Test and The Cricket Match are very similar, Bob and I have decided to put infomation about the radio episode on the TV episode page. Therefore, I have moved the plot for The Cricket Match on to The Test page. This makes the Cricket Match page useless, so to help the project please delete it. The easiest way to do this would be for you to add  - that should get it Speedy Deleted under criteria General-7. Thanks --Mollsmolyneux 09:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed category "eurovison host cities" from article Brighton
Why have you removed this category? Brighton hosted the Eurovision song contest in 1974. The year that Abba won with Waterloo and effectively started their international career. So not only is Brighton a former host city, it hosted one of the better known years. I have replaced the category on this basis. Fork me 13:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies, just noticed the category no longer exists.Fork me 13:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of edits?
Time, I have noticed that (sometimes) people mention the number of edits on their page. The only way I was able to do this was by copying the entire list of edits from my contributions page, pasting it in Excel and then running a line count. I am sure there is better method, so since you are the person who signed the welcome on my talk page I ask you;-)-- PremKudva Talk  11:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ireland/UK Border
Hi, I have reverted your last edit. Please see the talk page, which explains my expert reasons for doing so. I don't see why you added that "fact" citation, other than being piqued: why? bigpad 18:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

category work not completed
your AWB pass is missing stuff see where you removed one instance of the category but missed the other (usually userboxes add the category 2 times, on the actual text and a hidden one). You may want to go a second pass and fix that. -- Drini 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * oh, nvermind, I see User Wikipedia was removed, not the other one. It'd help to mention ony our AWB summary the name of the category being removed -- Drini 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Mais oui! 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Sensorites
Thanks for the heads up. A few weeks ago I became very demoralised with the whole plot writing project. Having written over 70 of them (and yes, not all were masterpieces, but at least they were copy...) I felt the way my work on The Daleks was discarded was both high-handed and unrepresentative of the general approach to the world of Who on wikipedia. I notice now that the new style seems to have been reverted, but the whole thing left a bad taste. With regard to episode breaks (which is a topic I tried to flag a while ago with little response) it was only relatively recently I started using them. The first use was to distinguish my copy for The Abominable Snowmen (eps 2-6) from the lengthy summary someone wrote for episode 1. Although hr tags look ugly, once I started using them I persuaded myself they were valuable and kept on. There is, as far as I can see, no hard and fast rules over style, length and structure to plot summaries. I was happy for a long-time to keep churning them out based on the theory once they were all pretty much there, then it was easier to establish a house style and make sensible edits accordingly. It thus depresses me really that some contributors have taken it upon themselves of late not just to edit copy but to discard it for no good reason. The Sensorites is an example of a story where it's painfully slow to sit through 6 episodes, let alone write episode summaries that are very repetitive, which I'm sure mine were in this case (though that's more Peter R Newman's fault than anyone else's, perhaps...) I'm rambling a bit, so to get to your point: I've almost stopped caring how my summaries are treated. Lately, the whole damn thing is becoming so arbitrary and high-handed. So I'm not keen to revert to my own copy on The Sensorites because who's to say that my style and structure is better than the one substituted? Without clear guidelines that people abide by, work within and use in a spirit of respect to other people's work (even if it isn't perfect), I'm really not inclined to re-engage. But I appreciate the note :) --Litefoot 20:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Dad's Army Role call
There is currently a role call going on for this project and if you wish to contiune to help out with this project please see the project talk page. --Mollsmolyneux 11:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Elaborate
Please elaborate on your recent vote. A one word reason may not allways be enough. D e  mos  D  e  mon  08:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)