User talk:Zythe/Archive 5

Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article

 * Hello, Zythe, I'm not sure if I should leave a message in this spot or in your archives of August 2007, but I'm sure that you'll put this message where it need be. As I've stated to User:Paul730 on his talk page, I've recently talked with User:Bignole on the topic of what more to improve on with the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article before nominating it for Good Article (GA) status or Featured Article (FA) status. One of his suggestions was that you or User:Paul730 (or both, as it seemed that he meant both of you) may be able to help with summarizing this article's plot. And you may be able to help with some other aspects of this article that need improvement. For more of what was discussed on this matter, you can click on this link to my talk page, of course.

If you're busy with other matters at this time and can't really assist with this article for whatever reason, I'll understand, of course. See you around. Flyer22 03:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is my trim job of the plot section of Bianca and Maggie. It isn't in the article, I just implimented it to show what it could look like. What do you think?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re: Aquaman
Unless you was was "unsuccessful in getting picked up", simply saying it was "unsuccessful" insinuates that it aired and the ratings and reviews were bad.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Elemental superheroes
Yes -- I created this category and it seemed that others liked it as new additions were incorporated. Also -- I didn't see the "Fictional Elementals" category -- I figured it had been deleted. As far as this category being "broad" -- Storm is an mutant who controls the weather, while other characters like Iceman, Sunfire, Black Lightning and Polaris contol some other natural phenomena, i.e. the ELEMENTS. Others have added Swamp Thing and such, who -- since he has a tie to plant life -- is considered an icon of the "earth" element (though I didn't necessarily AGREE with this addition). (Mwmalone 01:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

Faith
Thanks for the link. I assume you left it for casual reasons, but I might actually quote Vaughn in my new sandbox. :) Paul730 23:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, obv. I just write the quotes down so I don't have to keep checking the book/pausing the DVD when I'm converting it to prose. Thanks for the praise. The Buffy one's kind of in limbo at the moment because I'm waiting for my friend to lend me his Watcher's Guides. I'm hoping there's some good characterization stufff in one of them. Plus the DVD features I haven't bothered checking yet. Paul730 23:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't help you, I'm afraid. :( I have the series 1 DVDs, but they're the singles not the boxset (they were on special offer) so no special features. I have the s2 boxset, but Jack's not in that so no good.  Sure they'll be something in the s3 DVDs.  You could try watching the Torchwood Declassifieds on YouTube, they have them all up there last time I checked.  Paul730 00:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol, yeah they do like back-slapping. We're just like "your episode hasn't even aired yet, we'll be the judged of how scary the monster is!" The other annoying thing is when five different people make the same point over and over again. The Jack article is looking great now anyway, so I wouldn't worry about a few extra sources that will probably just repeat what you've already found. Did you see my last comment on the review page, BTW? Paul730 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Supes has tons of powers, Jack only has one notable power, and even then I'm not sure it's correct to call it a "power" like he's a superhero or something. The Superman article takes an OOU look at how his powers developed over the years. Jack's is all IU. I can't be bothered debating the nature of sexuality (mainly coz I'm not sure whether it's psychological or genetic, either way it's not a choice I know that much), but regardless, it's part of his character and should be in characterization, I feel. Paul730 00:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh... yeah, forgot about that. :P I think the subsections are just unnecessary - they break up the article and make it weaker. I realise it's an LGBT article, but people don't have to be spoon-fed - if they read the article they'll find it, and characteriization is all the subheading we need (and the concept one, but that's not disputed). Paul730 00:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bignoles left a comment on the FAC page. It's about the Boe thing, I think we should mention it along with the Master storyline; It is hinted at in this ep that Jack may become..." with a reference to the semi-confirmation by RTD.  It should definitely stay in the article - IU maybe, but too big a plot twist to ignore. Paul730 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Holy feckin shit How cool is this new Angel cover??? :) Paul730 05:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Buffy variants aren't that great... apart from that one of the main three (can't remember what ish). The Angel variant looks better than the main cover, although I'll probably get the main cover. BTW, whose interior art do you prefer... Georges Jeanty or Franco Whatshisname?  I like the Jeanty art, but the Franco one is kind of better, I think.  Paul730 11:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, Franco and Urru are the same person = Franco Urru. I meant which art do you prefer: Buffy's or Angel's.  And I preferred Paul Lee's Rona; much better than the real thing.  Jeanty's art is good, but I hate how Faith and Andrew look like they have learning difficulties.  As for the Marvel trinity; definitely Hulk.  For comic fans, it's probably Cap as he has more impact, but Hulk is more famous for normal people (lol, comic fans aren't normal).  Whose your fave out of the slasher trinity; mines is Mikey but I've got a soft spot for Jason as well.  Good things come in three, it seems.  Paul730 11:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Urgh, Freddy. I don't really understand your question.  You mean the Marvel equivalent to Supes, Bats, and WW?  Probably Sentry, Iron Man (rich business guy, no real powers), and... Thor, probably.  My friend says Captain Marvel, Black Panther, and Ms Marvel.  Paul730 12:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Lovely Buffy covers and a new shot of Xander topless. Do you think that a Bander relationship is on the cards, or are they just teasing us? I think I'd prefer Bander to Rander (Renee/Xander). Paul730 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Joss always wanted Bander to happen, but the fans like Angel and Spike more. (The character based on Joss Whedon was intended to get with Sarah Michelle Gellar... self-indulgent much?)  Speaking of Buffyverse couples, what do you think of Bangel, Spuffy, and Cangel.  I think Spuffy and Cangel were more exciting to watch, but part of me is always pushing for Bangel.  Paul730 20:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Piers the redhaired time traveling pirate from the world without shrimp? I assume that was a joke and not a pet character you're planning on writing fan fic about? ;) I don't want the Buffyverse to turn into the Marvel Universe.  The shows had silliness in them like Puppet Angel and the musical, but it worked because the characters were believable.  Yes, the comics allow epic-ness that the TV budget wouldn't allow, but lets keep things grounded in reality.


 * I always thought that Shanshu Angel and Buffy would eventually end up together somehow. Not onscreen/panel, but implied, like it was in "Chosen".   I think Angel should get Shanshu, and Spike should sacrifice himself in the "final battle", because Spike couldn't live as human.  He always embraced his vamp side too much, even after he got his soul.  I also think Bander could be a nice end to it all as well.  Xander always loved Buffy more than Anya (in "Hell's Bells", it's implied their marriage disintregated because Xander was in love with Buffy).  That said, in "Restless", Buffy refers to him as "big brother".  Paul730 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Part 2
Well, what did you think of #7? I won't tell you my opinion till you reply, in case I spoil it. :) Paul730 18:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. As I said, I won't spoil it, but needless to say, Faith's attempts at being posh are hilarious. And there's a funny gay joke in there which you'll probably like, lol. Lady Genevieve is a great character, I think. :P Paul730 21:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Any way we can include a link to that Slayage essay on Willow's page? I tried to, but it messed up the citation template.  Paul730 21:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's it fixed? Lol, I'm crap with templates, they confuse me. I think there was an unnecessary space in it or something? Paul730 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Mm, not sure. Jabba the Hutt and Jason Voorhees have toy/action figure pics on their articles, and they're FA.  I think so long as you really justify it's inclusion in the caption then it would be fine.  Although wouldn't it have to be public domain or you have to have taken the picture yourself or something?  I'm really not an expert with images.  Paul730 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't take my word for it. Both Jabba and Jason's pics are sourced to another website.  But it's possible that they're allowed because those toys aren't out anymore?  Dunno, you should ask another editor, because I think an image of an action figure would be quite good for the article.  Not crucial, but definitely beneficial. :)  Paul730 22:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't know if you noticed, but your edits to Willow's article was reverted due to the question of Slayage's reliability. I asked a couple editors for their opinion, and the issue is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffyverse, if you're interested. :) Paul730 23:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Classification
Ta for the link earlier, didn't have a chance to read it till now because my friend was here. I noticed the edits made to my sandbox and I'm grateful that you're helping me. Don't you think Buffy should be classed as "Slayer" or "Human/Slayer" though? She clearly differs from other, human characters in the series, and the fact that Slayers are part demon (per "Get It Done") makes them even less than human. Not to mention the fact that Slayers are now at war with "the human race" and General Voll refers to them as a "master race", dividing them furhter. Perhaps "species" is a bad word to use... maybe "Classification" instead? What do you think? Paul730 21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How do I change the template? :/ Paul730 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ta much. :) Think we should put "Key" for Dawn? Paul730 21:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How about just Human/"The Key"? (Maybe with a link to Buffyverse Wiki, where we can write a brief article about the Key and it's history) They can always read the rest of the article if they want an explanation. By the time I get around to Dawn's article, I'll probably explain the Key thing in the lead, albeit briefly. I'm putting Human/Slayer for Buffy and Human/Witch for Willow/Tara/Amy. I might put Human/Sorceror for Jonathan, since I believe The Monster Book explains the difference (I'll include a reference obv). Will also put refs for Cordelia's Human/Demon. What about Lorne; should it be "Demon" or "Anagogic demon". I'm afraid to go int detail... Paul730 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would not delete the field. Jonathan has never been referred as a sorceror in the show that I remember.  Just checked the Monster Book - he's not in it (it only chronicles Seasons 1 -4 pre-Trio).  I would not count Andrew as demon summoner - that could go in powers.  Watcher is more of a job title - I wouldn't put it.  How about this:

Any other headaches you can think of? Paul730 22:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Buffy - Slayer (Slayers are enhanced humans - no need to mention human)
 * Willow - Human (Witch) (demons can be witches/warlocks too - like that creepy red guy Cyvus Vail)
 * Dawn - Human (can include reference mentioning Key stuff)
 * Jonathan/Giles/Andrew/Ethan/anyone else - Human
 * Lorne - Demon
 * Anya - Ex-Vengeance Demon
 * Oz - Werewolf

I'm not loving this "Part demon" thing - what's the other part then? Martian? We need to be clear. Paul730 22:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cordelia - Part demon and Higher Being
 * Connor - Part demon


 * Connor and Doyle are fine. I would change Cordy's to something like "Human (part demon)" - "Part demon, formerly human" makes it seem like she's not human at all when she is, just not 100%. How about adding in "Seer" to Cordy as well - her visions are a massive part of the show and she is explicitly referred to as a seer in "Parting Gifts".  Hmm, but then Angel and Doyle are seers too.  Urgh, this is so annoying.

??? Paul730 22:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cordelia - Human, Seer, Part Demon, Higher Being


 * I've changed my mind, lets not include seer. We can mention it in the powers section.  I'm not going to change all these right now.  I plan on rewriting most of the Buffyverse character pages sooner or later, so I'll change them then.  Do you think the Big Bads should be merged into a "List of Buffy villains" page?  Are they really that notable in the real world?  Also, I was arguing with Bignole about whether or not certain characters are notable simply by being imporant in the show, regardless of their media coverage (like Xander).  He said they weren't, so if you ever find any sources proving a character's notablity, please show me them, since I'm terrible at finding sources online.  Paul730 22:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Section break
How do you think we should include Buffyverse characters' powers in the infoboxes? See my Buffy sandbox for how I have it now, but I'm not sure. I can predict some people kicking up a stink about the "Enhanced intuition" one, even though she blatantly displayed it in the movie (canon, or not, we have to mention it). Also, some of it is a bit original researchy - is it ever stated that Buffy has supernatural reflexes or are we just drawing conclusions? I'm not sure whether to have it in a list or prose - infoboxes are supposed to be all about the clarity and prose may be a bit of a word wall. I also don't want to include the "Ability to channel Willow's consciousness" thing - that's more Willow's power than Buffy's. Feel free to just edit my sandbox, I'll tell you if I disagree. Paul730 02:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm reluctant to have a "powers" section. It just seems like in-universe stuff, with no commentary by the writers (I don't recall Whedon ever discussing Buffy's powers, they pretty much speak for themselves).  How would you recomend writing her powers into a "characterization" section while keeping it relevant? Paul730 15:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I was on Brian Lynch's myspace and saw a comment asking "is Betta George canon" and I thought "that's what Zythe is always going on about" and then, what do you know, there's your face right next to it, lol. I really want to read his Spike comics, they look excellent, canon or not. Damn Forbidden Planet and their lack of Angel graphic novels! Might ask them to order it... Paul730 17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What character do you think he didn't want to write but loves writing. Maybe Connor? He's actually kind of funny in season 5, I just don't like the actor. Or Illyria? She would be pretty hard to write I imagine. Do you want Lorne to be in it? Paul730 21:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, Lorne and Clem, I never thought of that, what a great idea. ALthough Lornes not gay though. :P Paul730 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lorne in "Waiting in the Wings": "And Cordelia is a hell of a lady. I mean, if I thought she'd like to wear green, I'd be elbowing you out of the way. But she's out of my league."


 * Maybe he's bisexual? It doesn't really matter, he's still brilliant.  And I do want a happy ending for him.  Although, at the same time, I always kind of wanted him to die a heroic death, to prove that he wasn't the coward everyone had him down as.  Paul730 17:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you've mentioned that before. Lol, all anyone wants is Cordelia back.  Rightly so, she's been in it from the start, it can't end without her.  But isn't A:AtF the end of Angel, is it being continued afterwards?  Paul730 17:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't like Cordelia to come back just for shock value, though. Have her be crucial to the battle that's happening - the one to save them all.  Paul730 17:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Connor - good because no Vincent Kartheiser. Gwen - good because she's a cool, underused character. Harmony - Let's hope! Nina - meh, don't really like her. Although Bryan (sic) :P said that romance would play a part in the story so maybe dog-girl will be in it. I hope they make her into a good character because her little booty calls with Angel kind of pissed me off. Paul730 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What? Why did you italicise all the Ys?  Black Lightning?  Phht, more like Victor Mancha.  (Marvel/DC rivalries die hard).  As for Connor and Dawn... ew, they're like cousins or step-siblings or aunt/uncle or something.  Maybe you didn't mean in a romantic way, but I'm not a fan of the whole Conner/Dawn thing.  Paul730 22:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You finally read Runaways! :) Have you read them all, or just the Victor arc? Who's your favourite character (mine's Gert, but I love them all!).  Yes, Magneto has quite enough morally ambiguous children, I like that it was Ultron.  Paul730 22:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a whole big convoluted family tree in Marvel. Everybody's related in some way; Pym, Vision, Victor, Scarlet Witch, Wiccan, Magneto, Crystal... the list goes on and on.  Lol, if you were a writer everybody would be bisexual (yes, I saw your Charmed fan video where Wyatt was gay and I disagree with the criticism it got)  So.... Runaways?  Here's a sweet fan video you might like. Paul730 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, been meaning to ask you; what do you think of Tara's death in Buffy? I know a lot of fans hate it because they feel like Joss Whedon gave a wonderful gift to the lesbian community and then took it away again out of cruelty. Both these fans and Amber Benson criticise him for this decision. What are your thoughts? Paul730 23:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a fan should detach themselves to just enjoy what they're watching when it's being written well. That's a fairly cold and clinical approach to things. :( I think her death is brilliantly powerful, and is a highlight of the show.  As for being cruel to the lesbian community, surely treating Tara the same as other characters (like Cordy, Anya, Doyle etc) is more respectful than making her immune just because she's gay?  I'm asking because I was reading a forum last night, and there's a bunch of fans who count the UPN era as non-canon because of the whole Tara's death/Dark Willow/Spuffy/Giles leaving/Hell's Bells stuff.  Personally, I love Season 6 and 7.  Paul730 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, did you notice the Doctor and Rose's little cameo in Buffy #6? Maybe I'm seeing things, but I swear it was deliberate. Oh, and have you seen this panel from Angel s6? Paul730 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Second to last page, the panel where Giles says "One last question before your car arrvies", and there's a man with a suit suspiciously similar to the Tenth Doctor's walking along with a blond girl in a pink hoodie. Oh, and they're standing next to a phone box.  Coincidence?  Paul730 14:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Superhuman strength
Hey, results of the afd came back no consensus in case you were unaware. Do my eyes deceive me or are there too many examples of characters there? I'd tie some loose ends on the article but I'm just too tired now. I'm about to stop for the day, I'd appreciate your insight and assistance if possible. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will get started on rewriting it into encyclopedic form. I just need you to do this one quick favour for me: remove all the extra examples of feats/characters that are on the super strength article. Can you do this task? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're on the same page here. You misunderstood, I'm sure. There are some examples listed that need removal. I'll take care of the rewritting portion, I just acquire your help on this request of mine. I do hope you will listen to me this time, not sure what you're planning on User:Zythe/Sandbox‎. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I incorporate the information in your sandbox to the super strength article or you have something else in mind? I now see your point about listing multiple examples of comic book characters, it is pointless, but yes the page clearly needs to be redone. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Firestarter (Charmed)
Firestarter (Charmed), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Firestarter (Charmed) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Firestarter (Charmed) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Firestarter (Charmed) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jay32183 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew
Just wondering what you thought of the Andrew Van De Kamp article since it's under FAR. I know you worked on a bit with Dev920. Paul730 18:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? Because you just don't feel very strongly, or because you don't want involved in the argument.  It's getting kind of ugly; I've already been called a dick, a bastard, and an "overzealous sycophant" (of Bignole's) by various editors.  I know you're friendly with Dev but she's taking things very personally (although it should be noted she wasn't the one who insulted me).  Paul730 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, my wiki policy knowledge is kinda limited as well, but I know enough from looking at other FA character articles that Andrew doesn't match up. It kind of confused me because I was like "why do people always tell me to condense plot summaries when there's this massive plot in an FA artcicle"?  Are you gonna renominate Jack Harkness?  Paul730 19:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty damn close to FA. It really improved during the FAC so it wasn't a wasted effort.  I'd maybe work some more on the lead.  I'm not an expert, but I think it's supposed to summarise the entire article, so you might want to summarise the characterization/critical impact section briefly.  You can always look at WP:LEAD for more info.  Paul730 19:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Jason only has a couple of citations in the lead, for controversial stuff like "Hodder is the most famous Jason actor, Jason's mask is a pop culture icon, etc. Here's a crude layout of how it could be:


 * Paragraph 1 - Summary of Jack's appearances (DW/TW)
 * P2 - Summary of Jack's character (bi time traveller)
 * P3 - Summary of Jack's impact/role in pop culture (gay sci fi hero)
 * That's pretty much the formula I plan to follow with Buffy/Faith/Angel. Sound good? Paul730 21:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've copied the lead into your sandbox, let's work on it there. I think we should mention how the character was initially a coward and grew into a hero. If you look at my Buffy sandbox, I'm fairly happy with the first two paragraphs of that. (The last one can't be done till I actually write the characterization/impact section obv). Paul730 21:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Noone else does what? Worry about repetition?  Make a sandbox?  I think anyone who edits Wikipedia on a regular basis pretty much qualifies as a geek anyway. ;) I think the character arc should be in p2, along with the inital concept (sexy male sidekick for the Doctor) and a mention of his personality, with p3 focusing solely on how the character was recieved by the media (positive portrayal of a bisexual, good role model for teens, whatever).  I don't think it matters if we repeated ourselves later in the article (as long as it's not word for word) because the lead is a summary of the article so repetition is expected to a certain extent.  Right?  Paul730 22:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've asked Bignole for some advice on leads since he usually knows his shit, wiki-wise. As for the Buffy Summers references, I have loads of sources to go through, including The Watcher's Guides and some academic studies that other editors turned up for me.  I'm more interested in Faith's article at the moment, but I'll get round to it all eventually.  Kind of procrastinating right now TBH, because I just bought Pokemon Pearl so that's taking up much of my time. ;) Paul730 22:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

<!--

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Charmed the brewing storm.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Charmed the brewing storm.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. BetacommandBot 07:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CharmedFirestarter.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:CharmedFirestarter.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. BetacommandBot 07:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:THE DEMON.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:THE DEMON.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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.—Angr 18:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC) -->

Buffy characters
Hi, please tell me your opinion on something. I'm rewriting the List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters article in my sandbox, and am stuck as to what direction to go in. There are several articles to write, for main characters, minors, villains, etc. However, I can either lay these out alphabetically as in my (extremely unfinished) sandbox, or in a table as in Bignole's Smallville sandbox. I think maybe major characters should be arranged alphabetically and minors should be in a table. See Bignole's talk page for more info (at the end, after all the Heroes stuff). What do you think I should do? Paul730 07:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the preview for Angel: After the Fall? I think it looks amazing - Angel is friends with the dragon! Tell you something though, I'm getting really sick of these spoilt fanboys whinging about it being a comic book. I was reading the comments after the preview, and it was all negative. They're so ungrateful and closed-minded. Paul730 17:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I hate these people who claim to be Buffy/Angel fans and then don't have a good word to say about it. I'm very optimistic about the comics; the shows ran their course brilliantly, and the comic book format allows a fresh take.  The people who complain about switching medias should remember that Buffy started out as a film - sometimes change can be a good thing.  I'm so excited about Angel S6, I hope the dragon sticks around, and I hope Illyria is in it a lot.  She's one of my favourite Buffyverse characters. :)  Paul730 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Bilis Manger
Just interested to know why you've taken out the but about his name being a possible anagram? --Rodhullandemu 17:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Leave it with me. I got it from Russell T. but I'm sure there's a ref somewhere. --Rodhullandemu 11:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Superman X
Thought you might be interested in this. I've already reverted it. - CobaltBlueTony 19:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This guy is adamant about this; we need a resolution instead of edit warring. - CobaltBlueTony 14:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations about comics

 * I have a fairly unrelated question about citations within comics. Hypothetical situation:in an article about a comic, an editor adds some cn tags to material that seems to be colored by the writer, and truly reflective of the material. The response from another editor is to say, 'hey, the material is righ in the book, and lists the comic book. Seeing as the editor wasn't super familiar with the comic to begin with, but still notes the in-universe references, put yourself intoo the shoes of the editor who added the tags, and tell me how you would respond. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Heres the article. I'm just looking for a new set of eyes to help me evaluate what needs fixing, what needs citation and what is hunkey-dorey, and not any sort of dispute resolution. Let me know on my Talk page what you think. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that since you found the references, you should post them in the Discussion page. Its bad karma to claim the work product of others. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Stalker much?
Lol, just kidding, you know I luv ya really. ;) I tried chatting to you last week about Buffy, what do you think of Faith's story? Paul730 00:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently there's a bit of a hoo hah amongst fans about Faith being "evil" again. How Vaughn just ignored her quest for redemption in Angel.  Personally, I'm not worried.  Faith is vulnerable, and easy to manipulate.  She only became "evil" (I'm using inverted commas because she was never really evil, just mentally ill) because the Mayor treated her well and loved her, so she was loyal to him.  It makes sense that Faith would be tempted if Gigi treats her like family too.  It's probably easier for her to be friends with Gigi than it is Buffy; Buffy reminds her of everything she doesn't have, so it's understandable that Faith resents her.  I'm really enjoying this story, I like the relationship between Faith and Giles, they have more in common than I realised.  Willow was hilarious, I'm looking forward to seeing more of her.  The Jo Chen #10 cover is amazing. Paul730 00:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey stranger. Long time no chat.     Paul    730  21:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I stole it from Bignole, lol. I thought NFfY3 was excellent, but I'm not really in a Buffy mood right now.  I've kind of neglected my sandboxes for the time being because I just can't be bothered with them.  I loved the Buffy/Gigi fight, and the Willow scenes.  Willow scenes are solid gold in that book, I love them all.  I think I'll enjoy it more on a rereading when I'm more excited about it.  Angel S6 looks amazing... Angel tames the dragon?! And fights Illyria??  The whole thing looks far more exciting than Buffy.  I love Buffy, but it has notoriously slow season openers.  Oh well, sure it'll heat up when the Big Bad gets revealed in #11(?).     Paul    730  22:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If Willow scenes are gold, then Andrew scenes are... whatever's better than gold (platinum?). Seriously, Andrew, Anya, and early Cordy are the best characters ever in terms of scene stealing.  Love em.  I'm a Kennedy fan (and by fan, I mean I'm part of the 0.009% of the fandom that don't wish her dead).  I'd like to see her fleshed out more.  I could do without Mr and Mrs Finn, thankyouverymuch.  I respect Riley's role in the series (exploring a "normal" relationship with Buffy, getting her over Angel) but it doesn't mean I want to see him again.  It seems inevitable though, he's confirmed to reappear at some point.  I'd like to see Oz again... Seth Green's career meant that the character never reached his full potential, and with no restrictions in terms of wolfie SFX, we can see the real Oz.  I'd also like closure for Anya.  We desperately need a "You're Welcome"-style "goodbye" episode for her, since she was never properly mourned in the show.     Paul    730  22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

Category:Fictional characters who can fly
There's a discussion going on in this area concerning what should be done with the cat. Some suggested deletion, others were clarify the description and/or rename it. , I'm letting you know because I've noticed that you're pretty good at these comic book-related matters. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Bionic Woman
I'm not familiar with the character, but I'd be happy to lend a hand. :) Having just glanced at it, I notice the character has two articles for two different series. Shouldn't they be merged?  Even if she's significantly different in them, we don't usually have seperate articles for different versions of the same character (unless  there's a zillion of them, Superman or something).  Having two shows to write about might make the article better; we can talk about how the character changed and stuff. Paul730 09:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A sandbox would probably be less stressful, especially if there's some controversy about the article, since you won't be constantly fighting vandals and other editors. Then when you're done, the finished article can speak for itself.  Has the character appeared in any other media besides the two TV shows?  Comics or books or whatever? Paul730 09:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, ya gotta love those strong female protagonists. And who knew big lanky Zoe Slater would have a career post-Enders? The character certainly seems notable (the old version was voted 88th best TV character  - knew I knew that name from somewhere) and I'm sure she has potential for a great article.  Are you planning on taking it to FA?  If you don't want to make a sandbox, you could at least put a "This article is under contruction" tag on it.  Paul730 10:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Harmony
I hope it was Kate!, oh well you took Harmony off the list of characters for After the Fall. I'm not saying that in the picture it's her, but in the interview with Scott. (theres are link to it from the page), he says that Harmony makes an appearance, so she shall stay...he didn't mention though that if the picture was of Harmony. Smartjoe299 03:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Billie, Ladybug and Other.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Billie, Ladybug and Other.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. Ejfetters 14:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Piper's granddaughter.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Piper's granddaughter.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. BetacommandBot 15:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Othergrandchildren.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Othergrandchildren.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. BetacommandBot 15:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Familyforever.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Familyforever.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. BetacommandBot 15:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Paige and kids.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Paige and kids.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. BetacommandBot 15:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Deadman Torchwood.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Deadman Torchwood.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RhysDrugged.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RhysDrugged.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Child Sacrifice.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Child Sacrifice.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JacksKiss.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JacksKiss.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gwen Looks Up.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gwen Looks Up.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #CC9966; text-align: center;" |The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter  {| The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue XI - November 1, 2007
 * style="border: solid 1px purple;"|
 * style="border: solid 1px purple;"|
 * colspan="2" valign="middle" style="width: 60%; border: 1px purple solid; padding: 1em; background: #ffe4e1" |
 * valign="top" style="border: 1px purple solid; padding: 1em; width: 75%; " |
 * valign="top" style="border: 1px purple solid; padding: 1em; width: 75%; " |

Hey, Peeps, it's that time of the month again (no not that time &mdash; get your mind out of the gutter): time for another monthly edition of the LGBT Project's Love Boat newsletter from your cruise director Miss Julie. So much has been happening this month and I just can't wait to tell you all about it!!!

{| style="font-size: 90%;"
 * valign="top" |
 * valign="top" |

Alice and her harasser
Let's start with some good news: Alice and the project lost the bothersome sock puppet who had been disrupting many articles we monitor, and now most of us can edit in relative peace. Congratulations, Alice, for being able to come out of semi-retirement. Benjiboi, on the other hand, has gained an anonymous IP stalker who seems to be more Catholic than the Pope and who has a hard-on for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. We seem to have a sort of Yin and Yang thing going on here, which helps both to keep us in balance and on our toes.

Harry Potter and his homosexual teacher
Albus Dumbledore got outed this month, and was immediately adopted by our project. The international brouhaha surrounding this disclosure reached all the way to Wikiland, and his article was briefly locked due to homophobic vandalism (as well as well meaning editors who just couldn't believe that that nice man could possibly be gay). This is a wonderful article to add to your watchlist, and will surely give you hours of reverting fun on cold winter days.

"My Fellow Americans"
On a more serious note, Fireplace has suggested a new article series about LGBT rights in the United States, state by state. This ambitious topic will surely require many editors and a lot of research, but has the potential to add further prestige to our already prestigious project.

Same name, same sexuality: a riddle for the ages
Francis Bacon (not the new gay one, but the old gay one ... though they're actually both dead, now that I think about it) has also aroused passions here on Wikipedia, with editors opposing his sexuality being disclosed in his biography. The always helpful Haiduc has thoughtfully provided any number of sources, but it is slow going getting his point across. Anyone want to lend a hand?

Beat writer arouses Irish guy
And speaking of passions, Jack Kerouac has inflamed the senses once again with editors, including administrator Irishguy, mounting a spirited defense to keep him as heterosexual as possible for Wikipedia purposes. Why? I don't know. Perhaps some of you can drop by the talk page and ask your questions there. I feel certain a stimulating debate will ensue that will be enjoyed by all.

Love those Texas Longhorns
Did you know that one of our Featured articles, Lawrence v. Texas, lost its shiny gold star? That was a shocker. It has been suggested that we turn our attention to it in an effort to restore it to its former glory. I took a peek, and it does need our help badly. For our American editors, it would seem almost a civic duty to edit it (not that I'm hinting....).

Point and Counterpoint
Though it was far too intellectual a debate for a mere cruise director like myself to take part in, Intersexuality was certainly a hot topic a week or two ago. The thrust of the debate was over inclusion in our project. Lots of good editors had lots of good opinions. For those too lazy to check out the discussion, we decided to leave it out for now.

Drudgery on offer
Peer review is, as always, short staffed and seemingly unloved. Wouldn't you feel better about yourself and the world in general if you took a few minutes to read one of the listed articles and offer some helpful advice? I know I'd feel better if you did.
 * valign="top" |

"My Fellow Americans" redux
The article LGBT movements in the United States certainly raised eyebrows last week, especially when it was discovered that copyrighted content had been added to our article. Tragedy was averted at the last minute, though, when the original hosts of the article where the material had been pilfered agreed to make it free to everyone. Our thanks to them, whoever they are. Busy Bee that I am, I haven't had time to read it, but I'm sure it's sensational.

This month's Wiki stars
Lesbian pulp fiction (a genre close to my heart, I must confess) writer Ann Bannon has decided to spice up the featured articles candidates list this month. Why not drop by and make your opinion heard? Joining her in this lofty aspiration are the articles But I'm a Cheerleader and Conversion therapy. I'm sure their main editors would welcome any comments (well, helpful ones, anyway) on the talk pages or the FAC discussions. And lest we forget, the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Sd-Si became a Featured list!! Rah rah, siskumbah! Go, team, GO!!!!

And the Oscar goes to...
Not content to run for Best Actress, plucky Bannon won a Best supporting actress Oscar... whoops, I meant to say Ann is also getting more than her share of womanly attention on the Good Article list. Joining her on this exalted plane are Freddy Mercury, Waylon Smithers and Lance Bass. Good articles indeed, and the last one mentioned just goes to show that one needn't admire the subject of an article to appreciate the effort put into making him worthwhile reading. What on earth Britney ever saw in him I'll never know. Truly a riddle cloaked in an enigma and wrapped around a puzzle.

Fresh faces to brighten our pages
Though I may not be the first, let me extend a warm, LGBT Love Boat welcome to the 12 new members who joined us in October: Jliberty, JockCub360, ChristopherEdwards, Desiderius82, Zlrussell, Kelsied, BeardedWoof, Mujerado, Tyrfing, Fabgurrl, Redl@nds597198, and decafdyke! Whatever you choose to do here, I feel sure that your contributions will enhance our project to no end. And if they don't...well, let's just say that I'm not shy.

Leather and lace
On a personal note, your already overworked cruise director is being cyberly whipped almost daily by Nemissimo, who desperately wants to get the German BDSM translation copy edited and used as a replacement for the current one. It's such a ... err, stimulating topic that I am sure many of you will want to join the copy editing fun. Jump right in, folks! It's so lonely copy editing it all by my lonesome!

Late breaking news
A little birdie just whispered in my ear that our noble collaboration project was delisted from the Community Portal due to inactivity. When asked how this scandalous turn of events could have occurred, the answer I received was "we suck at stuff like that". Well. In the first place, I disagree that sucking should be considered a negative, but to each his or her own. In the second place, I have full confidence that we can and will collaborate with other projects in the future. So let's not view this as a setback (even though it is), but rather a challenge to improve (and good Lord, I sound almost Wikipedian!).

Champagne dreams and caviar kisses
Lastly, the holidays are rapidly approaching. Our American cousins are currently getting ready to slaughter masses of poultry in an effort to show their gratitude and generally peaceful demeanor, and those of the Canadian persuasion, trendsetters that they are, celebrated a bit early this year. I'm sure all us foreigners will join together in wishing them all a very happy Thanksgiving on their respective holidays, both already celebrated and forthcoming... though I would hope somebody would enlighten me as to why they don't celebrate it on the same day. I was awake all last night trying to figure that one out. - In the spirit of this peculiarly North American holiday, let me take a moment to thank all of our editors for their contributions to this project. It's people like you who make people like me...well, a "people person"! May all your Wiki days be bright, and may your Love Boat never turn into a Poseidon.
 * }

Kisses,

Miss Julie To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know. Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
 * valign="top" colspan="2" style="padding: 0.5em; text-align: right; font-size: 85%; " |
 * valign="top" colspan="2" style="padding: 0.5em; text-align: right; font-size: 85%; " |
 * }
 * }

Wizard Article about Arena.
What do the words "So we thought it’d be fun to pick some fights WE’D wanna see" and "these alternate-world DC characters—who may or may not appear in Arena" mean to you?

Duggy 1138 21:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. BTW: The above was meant to be taken in a fun way, but looking at it again, it could be seen as a little mean spirited.  You didn't seem to take it that way, but I thought I'd better make that clear.
 * Duggy 1138 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bos-1x08-2.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bos-1x08-2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. Jay32183 (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

forerunner
Um... I don't think that it's worth mentioning since not all of them are/were blue.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Angel
So... what's the verdict? I'll be honest, it wasn't exactly what I was expecting. That doesn't mean I didn't like it though. It was kind of weird... it seemed to focus more on introducing new demons/characters than the characters we already know. I wasn't expecting it to pick up months later... I thought it took place like right after "Not Fade Away". Must have misread the previews. I thought (commented out to avoid spoiler in case you haven't read it) was acting a bit weird... I don't know what to think about him/her. Nina was acting very out of character... I think that was the point, and it's not like she had much character to begin with. The best bit was the last panel - so glad they've decided to go down that road! :) Also, I see why everyone's so gay for Betta George, he's really funny. Is he meant to sound like a stoner or something, lol?  What's his story?  Overall, I think the book has much much promise, but the introductory issue suffered from a lack of interaction between our main characters.  Hopefully, Spike and Illyria will fix all that.  Also, any weird characterizations are understandable... they've been in hell for months.  I'm still getting used to the new status quo, but that's allright.  Quite a few Angel stories, I've been like "WTF?" and only come to enjoy them on repeat viewings.  I'd rather the writers didn't play safe.     Paul    730  17:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The glossy paper was cool, lol. I did expected it, since all the other IDW Angel books were glossy too.  I actually said to my friend "That extra 60p it cost went to a good cause", lol.  I hadn't even noticed the lack of adverts, that's a good thing.  Did you like the artwork?  I thought it was good, and suited the tone of the series, but it was also frustratingly vague and blurry.  Urru doesn't have the talent for likenessess that Jeanty does.  I got both the Harris and the Urru covers... think I'll continue getting the Harris ones though, even though his upcoming Illyria cover isn't very good (she has a fat face). (Just noticed it's not Harris who drew that, my bad) I've read #1 a couple of times now, and it's better than my first impression of it.  I actually wondered what would happen to Wesley's soul, since he was contracted to W&H, I'm glad they're addressing that.  Wesley didn't look that great IMO, I can't remember him wearing a suit and glasses since season 2 and 3.  There was something creepy about Wesley.  Vamp Gunn looked awesome!  Finally, the most boring Team Angel-er gets to do something cool!     Paul    730  18:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, thanks. I thought it best to weed out the cruft before it enveloped the entire article.  I only added a reception section... added one for Buffy season 8 as well.  If you find any more reviews, please dump them in the talk page and I'll try to impliment them.     Paul    730  18:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I plan to move my Faith sandbox over to the mainspace sometime tonight. It's not finished (the critical analysis section hasn't even been started yet - don't know if I'll even use that title) but I figure it's still better than what's there, and I'll probably be more inclined to work on it more if it's out where everyone can see it.  Anyway, want to give it a look over, tell me what you think?    Paul    730  20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:Skins episodes
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Skins episodes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Skins episodes has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Skins episodes, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)