User talk:Matthew/Archive/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

		The Original Barnstar
		I hearby award you the barnstar for spending a great deal of time helping me with my user page. Thanks! Thorpe | talk 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the help with the BSG people template. Crito2161 00:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen the season finale, and am updating many of the pages to match. Don't go looking at recent edit histories if you haven't seen it yet. Travisl 02:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits on The 4400 and its related pages. Thanks! Travisl 15:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Elizabeth Weir (Stargate) Robert C. Cooper Brad Wright Episode Hank Landry Paul Mullie Peter DeLuise Genii (Stargate) Montreal Rocket Stargate SG-1 (comics) Ona Grauer Andy Mikita Gary Jones Teryl Rothery Anonym.OS Katharyn Powers Joseph Mallozzi Flag of South Ossetia Kavan Smith

Cleanup Ancient (Stargate) Strange frame Roman art Merge FN P90 in popular culture Beep (sound) Comedy Add Sources Stargate Command CMYK color model Iris (Stargate) Wikify Eric Draven Space Shuttles in fiction Conversation games Expand Stuart Tyson Smith Rob Thomas (writer) Eagle (crater)

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 04:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted several images you have uploaded have been attributed as source to you and author to you [1][2][3]. Thanks for attempting to identify the source, but this is not accurate. The source of the images are the TV shows in question, and the author is the creators of the show. The first half of the sentence at Image:Medium -- 1x16.jpg where it says "This is a screencap from episde #1x16 of the tv series Medium" is sufficient as it indicates what the source is and the author is inferred as the creators of the show. All the best, --Durin 19:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Stating you as the source is copyright improper. You are not the source; the show is. You are not the author of the image. The creators of the show is. It's a matter of definition. You can say you created the screencap if you like, but you are not the source of the image or the author. --Durin 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've made a change to one of the images you uploaded to provide a guiding sample. All the best, --Durin 20:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I know it was too large, and I've been meaning to get around to resizing it, but I just kept forgetting. Thanks. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing how to do it was never the problem. The problem was getting around to it! Remember the top ten rules for procrastination? Neither do I. I never got around to reading them. :) ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 20:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Your User page says you like Stargate, Dead Like Me, Doctor who, Harry Potter, The 4400, and all those other Sci-fi things. If you were a woman I'd marry you right here and now. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 20:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I figured you were male, since not many women are named Matthew. And, yes, I do like BSG, from the first film to the present, but not Galactica 1980 (YUCK!). And did I mention that Grace Park is totally hot? ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 20:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. samswicegood@comcast.net ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 20:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We get S4C and channel 4. So the O.C. is on about 3 times a week in Wales, including E4. We get Channel 4 through Digital, so on sky digital 104 is S4C and 117 is channel 4, but in the rest of the UK 104 is channel 4. Ryan2807 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting sections. It is considered vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwebby91 (talk • contribs)

Thank you, I am aware; that begs the question of that section is even necessary, considering ALL of the characters have their own pages. Why do we need that extra description if we can condense it into one short section that links to all the characters? Jwebby91 18:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding a new section, not violating any rules. You're deleting my helpful section, therefore there's no cause for you to report me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwebby91 (talk • contribs)

Isn't the information in that section repeating all the information on the pages that were created FOR those characters? I think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwebby91 (talk • contribs)

Alright, so couldn't you make a section that gives the background of the show by incorporating all the characters? In more of a paragraph format, I mean? Almost all TV shows on Wikipedia have character sections in the format that I outlined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwebby91 (talk • contribs)

So.. leave my section until other people object... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwebby91 (talk • contribs)

Done. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Almost speedyable, but the Xth-in-line-to-the-throne is arguably a claim of notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I created the template because I didn't like the episode chronology section. Earlier, the episode chronology was stated twice one with a link to the "list of episodes" and one without. Also, it had both the previous and next episodes on the same line that made some of the infoboxes look cluttered because of their long titles. I also realised the original television template had a colour attribute but I was mainly annoyed with the episode chronology part but didn't want to go and edit that in the "infobox television" template since there are a lot of articles using it. Do you think it is a better idea to have "previous" and "next" episodes on separate lines? -- Ladida 00:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Thanks for telling me about it. Regards, Ladida 23:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just got your message. That's fine, whatever you think works best. -- Ladida 11:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My name really is Ryan :o -- Ryan2807 17:57 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't be implementing the colour system without discussion, as I said. ed g2s • talk 22:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you within a day of you first adding it. That should alert you to the fact that your proposal was one that required discussion, and not something that could go through straight away. That it went unnoticed for a week after that does not mean it has to go through. Furthermore you have accused me of "violating policy" in an edit summary, what policy is that? The template has been working fine for months before you added the colours, and it will continue to work without them until you get a consensus to start using them. ed g2s • talk 23:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to be pick, it was just over a day and a half. Another user on the talk page objected. And stop claiming that because it was on the page for a few days, that makes it the status quo. The undisputed state of the template is how it was before your controversial edit. You want to implement this feature, so you get the consensus. ed g2s • talk 23:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The changes I just made are syntactical. They change neither the appearance nor behaviour of the template. Nor have they been challenged. If you think there are grounds to challenge my last edit, please elighten me... ed g2s • talk 23:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making major changes!? The template has been without parameters for month if not years! You've added them over the last few days hence it is up to you to get a consensus to add them. And I'd love to see where Wikipedia encourages the pointless addition of vaguely topic-connected colouring to pages... ed g2s • talk 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Take advantage" does not mean use all the time, even when unnecessary. Inline colouring of text has many drawbacks related to accessibility. You can't just come along and change the long-standing appearance of a high-use template without discussion. ed g2s • talk 23:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, applying colour to inline text when it is not necessary is Bad. What looks good on the monobook skin may not look good another skin, or visually impaired users who have their browsers set up with a specified colours for suitable contrast. Furthermore the reason we use a skin at all is to give pages a consistent look. If we start colouring pages by topic just for aesthetic reasons, we'll end up looking like myspace. This may be acceptable on users pages, but the article space is supposed to look professional. ed g2s • talk 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If a concensous says remove then so be it, but it should be left there till then." - on what grounds? You can't just come along and change the long-standing appearance of a high-use template without discussion. ed g2s • talk 00:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew, I thought I would let you know that I moved your 4400 character pages to new names, Tom Baldwin, Diana Skouris and so on. Wikipedia standard is to use the simplest name possible if there aren't any other clashes. I have fixed most of the links. Regards -- Chuq 03:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naw. I don't like it as much as just the BSG. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 16:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that not everyone uses Monobook. I think it's horribly ugly, for instance, and stick with Classic. DS 19:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you avoid using inappropriate edit summaries that accuse genuine editors of vandalism. [4] As you well know, AGF. Disagreeing with your changes doesn't make them a vandal. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the edit history, this is the first time i've used the vandalism summary. I've used restore, rollback and Revert Good Faith, he continues to revert which causes disruption to the pages and messes up pages and so i have had to use the vandalism revert and req. protection. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 09:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed isn't causing disruption to the pages: he's just disagreeing with your plans. There's no reason why your version should stay over the version that was there. I have asked an associated project for discussion to get informed outside views. Tho' I appreciate your logic (you want to use a colour associated with a partiuclar show in the infobox) Ed's reasons about professionalism and accessibility seem sensible. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. There's no need to relpy on my talk page because I'm watching yours. It's easier for third parties to keep track of a discussion if it's all in one place.[reply]

Okay np. Also i agree Ed can object, however it his manner in which he objects. I'm trying to gather concensous and reverting causes disruption to the template and hundreds of other pages. I'm also tring to implement his ideas, if he could converse and refrain from reverting we could gather concensous. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 09:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Someone may want to look here specificly "particularly spiteful email attacking Sergeant Snopake and I, twisting my words, just being a total dick" -- Blocking users for personal issues outside wikipedia should not be done as it is an abuse of power.

It seems inapropriate to block a user for a disgareement (not on wikipedia) over something he could potetioaly be making up. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 10:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is already being discussed at the admin noticeboard...thread beginning here and it appears that the issue is being handled by the Foundation or arbcom anyway.--MONGO 10:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to your talk page as WP:OFFICE is taking care of it, there is already a thread at AN, and too much already said about this. Hope you understand. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 10:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're typing over each other this morning. You've done so much good work on The 4400 pages, I'll let you make the final decision as to whether Marco's an "agent" or not. I added my reference to the discussion page as you were looking for it. Travisl 16:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL; just saw your rv. Thanks. Travisl 16:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Elizabeth Weir (Stargate) Kavan Smith Gary Jones Peter DeLuise Stargate SG-3000 Dan Shea Stargate SG-1 (comics) Anna-Louise Plowman Teryl Rothery Hank Landry Paul Mullie Beep (sound) Robert C. Cooper Joseph Mallozzi Claire Rankin Katharyn Powers Ona Grauer Montreal Rocket Genii (Stargate)

Cleanup Strange frame Ancient (Stargate) Roman art Merge Nielsen Ratings Meep Grinding (dance) Add Sources Iris (Stargate) Stargate Command Lockdown Wikify Eric Draven Ottoman Armenian population Venus and Adonis (Shakespeare poem) Expand Rob Thomas (writer) Kimi ga Nozomu Eien Doctor Who merchandise

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 20:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your 3RR report. I reviewed things and suggest no blocks at this time (I'm sure AMIB is aware of 3RR), and that you guys try to reach consensus on the relevant talk page before further revisions to the template. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's one of the best comedies on TV right now. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  13:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget already? I didn't, Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems. When I questioned that article you left more than one response filled with hostility and insults.--Crossmr 16:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure if necessary we can have an admin temporarliy undelete the talk page of that article.--Crossmr 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need, Crossmr. If you know how to click around, discussions are still out there and available. See Talk:Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_continuity_problems. -- PKtm 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only cause I undeleted it first :P I've also protected it. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to be undeleted, can we have the third AfD added to the talk page? Powers ^T 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Production" has a distinct meaning in the television industry. Production and filming do not have to take place in anywhere near the same location. DS 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if my last message got through or not so here goes.

Thanks for updating the rename request for the Daedalus class ship page.

Faris b 08:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you that I'd block you if you edit warred with popups again, and you went and did it, in this edit. Please come back tomorrow, after your block has expired, to continue the discussion on Template talk:Infobox Television episode. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MF asked after I reviewed the block for an editor not involved in the dispute to review the block. I am not involved in the dispute (and Redvers has reviewed it now anyway). I really suggest MF should take time away from the project, or review his RfC. To prove I am not "abusing" admin privilages, I will not edit the templates currently in dispute during the block. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Insanity13 has asked me to review the block on User:MatthewFenton. I have reviewed the original block, The JPS's comments and my own and find no reason to lift the block. I suggest that MF use the time to gain a sense of perspective about this matter. I am uninvolved in this dispute, have never edited and will never edit the templates currently in dispute. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Page is semi-protected to allow MF to discuss his recent block. --Thorpe | talk 13:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I thought about that... BUT, the ISS Enterprise is also in the category, so... ;) Besides, categories are ultimately about user utility. See, there is a category named "Ships named Enterprise." In deference to real sailors, the Star Trek ships are a sub-cat of this. NX-01 needs to be in that sub-cat -- if that means that we need to rename the sub-cat to Enterprise Ships (Star Trek) to be technically correct, then we'll have to do that, I guess. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got your e-mail on my blackberry. Happy to see that, as usual, I'm late and everything's been resolved :) -- Samir धर्म 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, whats a blackberry? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 17:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! :) I can't wait! Though neither of us can watch it on TV 'til later. :( By the way, about your earlier message, I hope you don't mind if I don't enter that debate. My opinion may be considered biased since I created the Prison Break episode infobox. I think I'll let you guys and the other administrators reach a consensus about this. Sorry. Anyway, hope you have a nice day. :) Ladida 11:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next year, I'm not quite sure. -- Ladida 11:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone mentioned that it starts in early 2007 in England. How's the weather? Ladida 11:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! I love winter and hate summer, which is weird for an Australian. :) Ladida 11:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARGH! I've been autoblocked! So I had to wait a while before I could answer. It was actually quite cold last week. But yesterday, it reached 24 degrees celcius. Today wasn't that cold either. Spring is coming. Sigh. -- Ladida 11:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some vandalist was using the same IP address as me. Sigh! grrr.... I hate sharing the same IP addresses with them. -- Ladida 11:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My IP address changes every few minutes. I am not sure about my ISP's handling of IP addresses. Ladida 11:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, the tail fins are precisely what I noticed during the recap. It's odd that a number of sites out there do call it a science vessel, or just "ship"; I don't recall finding any that explicitly call it an O'Neill. I'm just glad they showed that particular battle scene during the 200th Episode Special. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 15:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Number Three and Talk:Number Three/temp. I look forward to working with you :) — Philwelch t 03:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, feel free to provide your input at the survey: [5] Dionyseus 07:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why I felt that Sue Anne only assumed bad faith on me:

Talk 1: Many of your edits, in my opinion, cross the line when it comes to cruft and throwing in your opinions and/or personal wording to things

Saying "Cross the line" is somewhat a colloquial term and/or cliche that shouldn't be used. I'm not sure if that should be used in an article, but why do people use "Cross the line" because to me, that sound like a bit too extreme and harsh.

Talk 2: Saying "Trumped"

This is also extremely harsh criticism and/or having either bad or no faith whatsoever. Some of the words in my talk page I will really think that the user has either bad or no faith if his/her choice of wording tends to lead to me believing that the user has either bad or no faith.

Considering that Sue Anne has either bad or no faith at all, I had to start debating the use of caps at the discussion "Manual of Style--Capital Letters" as I have to debate the use of caps because my style of using caps is different than others. Please feel free to comment what you need to comment at the provided link discussion. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 14:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you're so cool. Jwebby91 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well he's a hard-working editor who makes lots of useful additions and suggestions to the project. So I TOTALLY agree with you - Matthew is pretty cool. --Charlesknight 21:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is what I was thinking of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mentorship

so I guess in your situation, you need to find someone you are happy with as a mentor and see if they are willing to act in that capacity. --Charlesknight 21:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having originally designed the Infobox Company and Infobox Celebrity templates, the templates were not designed with entertainment in mind. In fact, the celebrity infobox was primarily designed for any celebrity in any field, including business, such as Bill Gates. The "preferred" style is that which has been achieved through consensus for Infobox Company. Adraeus 21:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. No optional variables have been "broken". I've tested the template on several articles, including Bill Gates.

2. The 3RR limits users to three reverts. I'm well-acquainted with that rule...

3. By the way, placing the name inside the infobox is considered nonstandard and bad form.

Adraeus 21:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that [bgcolor] was a variable. I'll review my changes. Adraeus 21:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I've listed and described the changes committed to the template in more detail at Template talk:Infobox Celebrity. Adraeus 22:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My you please protect Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media and release information there is a edit war going on (72.177.68.38 01:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

We have updated the site look. Check it out. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 06:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, if you have the time, could you do me a favour and have a look at my edits on this [page. As you can see this [editor] is unhappy about my changes. So they have gone and done [this]. (scroll down until you see my name).

As far as I can see, all of my edits have removed material that really does not below in an encyclopedia - however if you don't feel that's the case, give it to me both barrels, as I have done to you a couple of times

--Charlesknight 09:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to head back over to the Adminstrator noticeboard where you are currently being painted as my henchmen. --Charlesknight 11:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it - the only two people it would affect would be me and him - in addition because he's not followed any of the guidance of what you need to do before you go there, it would get tossed out on it's arse.

--Charlesknight 14:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new The 4400 infobox, but think that the teal-on-turquoise font color for the title and Episode chronology is a tiny bit hard to read. If the font were a shade darker, I think it would work better.

Also, the image caption should be a smaller font, to match those used in standard images in Wikipedia.

With your extensive TV show edits, you probably know better than I do, but it'd be nice to have the episode number on one line ("Episode 3.7" or "3x07") instead of the current two ("Season 3< br >Episode 7"). Travisl 16:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much nicer caption size. Thanks! Travisl 16:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking great. I made one minor change, linking The 4400 in the title of the infobox. Travisl 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FWIW, I created redirects from Haspelcorp and promicin. Travisl 18:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't give promicin its own article; it definitely warrants its own section on The 4400 (which it has), but I don't know that it would ever be more than a stub. I don't think it's capitalized. Nine out of the 12 mentions of it at [6] have it lower-case, and one of the capitalized was in the (wrongly?) capitalized phrase "Promicin Scandal". Beyond that, it's a generic name, not a brand name. Although we capitalize the brand names of Tylenol, Advil, and Amoxil, we don't capitalize the generic drug names of acetaminophen (paracetamol), ibuprofen, and amoxicillin. Travisl 19:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've been trying to figure out how to do that. :) Iorek85 11:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MatthewFenton and Shannernanner, could you take a look at and improve Haspel Corporation? Matthew, as the screenshot guru, can you grab a frame from the last 60 seconds of "Graduation Day" for the page?

Also, Matthew, you asked me yesterday if you thought promicin should have its own page. I've thought about it for the last day, and have changed my mind; it probably should.

Thanks again to both of you for your work on The 4400 pages. Travisl 22:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Galen Tyrol Anastasia Dualla Elizabeth Weir (Stargate) Lee Adama Quadrant 904 Muse Watson No Man's Land (Stargate Atlantis) Grace (Stargate SG-1) List of Battlestar Galactica characters Battlestar Galactica (video game) Michael Rymer Criminal Minds Helena Cain Paul Scheuring Jason Momoa Colonial One Kevin Hooks Zak Adama Coup D'etat (Stargate Atlantis)

Cleanup Ancient (Stargate) Michael Nouri Gantz Merge The Multiverse Science fiction genres and related topics FN P90 in popular culture Add Sources DRADIS Stargate Command Six degrees of separation Wikify Daniel Roses Story arc Daggit Expand Christopher Golden Rob Thomas (writer) Galactic quadrants (Star Trek)

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 18:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, they're starting to flesh out nicely. After tomorrow's episode, we'll have another nine months to work on them before any new episodes come out. Travisl 09:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the Adoption article! Bastun 10:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as requested.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as requested.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I use it - why what's up?

--Charlesknight 16:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I use it - why what's up?

--Charlesknight 16:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep reverting my changes without explanation back to the way you constructed it? WP:OWN? -- Wikipedical 17:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why do you insist that 'The Album' stay at 'related' when it is named XFiles: The Album, just like XFiles: The Game? -- Wikipedical 17:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep reverting my changes without explanation back to the way you constructed it? WP:OWN? -- Wikipedical 17:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why do you insist that 'The Album' stay at 'related' when it is named XFiles: The Album, just like XFiles: The Game? -- Wikipedical 17:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, could you refrain from editing my user page again in the future?. I'll update the links myself when I see it fit. --Andromeda 19:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as articles go, I have no problem with that. But that's my user page, and have you stopped to think I may have it that way for some reason? I think editing an user page is rude, even if it's not against rules. --Andromeda 19:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it was a favour. I don't go around Wikipedia changing user pages, no matter how much they irk me or hurt my eyes, and I expect the same courtesy. Do not everyone sees the world your way. --Andromeda 19:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, Matthew--WHY do you keep seeking out conflict? Editing someone else's user page, uninvited, is rude. Go get a second opinion on this, rather than just stick to your guns. This is why you have an RfC, and this is why people have suggested that you get yourself a mentor. -- PKtm 19:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to get savvy to the situation, i was updating redirects. Eventually a bot would of done it anyway. Much nicer to have a human do it. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the question. The question is that is my user page and therefore I can have whatever I wish there. --Andromeda 19:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, i honestly cannot be botherd, if you are scared people will edit your page then request protection. You also need to WP:AGF, as i believed i was doing you a favour updating non-existant pages; Also for future reference: WP:OWN (PS: You can't have porn ;-)) thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not scared of anyone, I'm just asking for courtesy. And if I wasn't assuming good faith, I would have done something else than asking you politely. You don't need to quote me that page again, I already answered to you above. Please, stay away from my user page. Thanks. --Andromeda 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever consider asking people not to edit the userpage? Your telling me to be courteus, yet you have not left an implicit message and scalding me for doing you a favour. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all with replacing the screen caps. I don't have the capability of grabbing those myself, so I pulled them off of the usanetwork.com pages. I appreciate the consistency. Not jerk-like at all. And thanks for including me in the WikiProject. Travisl 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: pictures of minor characters: Either we should include pictures for all of them, or pictures for none. As we don't have pictures available for some of them, it'd probably be best to not have pictures, or to include them as part of the episode (e.g., as you did with Carl Morrisey) or escalate them to another category on The 4400 of "Recurring Characters" and give them their own page (e.g., April Skouris, Tess Doerner, Heather Tobey, and Gary Navarro) Travisl 17:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this classification split:

• Major characters: They're listed in the opening credits of any season, while "A Place in Time" is playing. They get listed on The 4400 and get their own page (e.g., Maia). Does Megalyn Echikunwoke appear in the opening credits? She should.
• Frequently recurring characters: They've been in four or more episodes or have great significance to the plot in multiple episodes. They get listed on The 4400 and may get their own page (e.g., Tess, Kyle, Marco)
• Other recurring characters: They've been in three or more episodes but don't have great plot significance in more than one episode (e.g. Heather Tobey, Matthew Ross)
• List of The 4400 minor characters: Everyone else, like the 4400-of-the-week or Captain Obvious the NTAC Agent

This will require a bit of rework to The 4400 page. If this sounds good, let's move it to the WikiProject. Travisl 19:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you perceived my comment to User:Andromeda as an attack. All I did was advise him that I thought it was pointless to try to convince you that it is rude to edit someone's user talk page without invitation. And I directed him to your RfC. That's the last I will have to say on the matter, other than to note that you're proving my point (and everyone else's point). Find a mentor, guy, as I and other more experienced editors have repeatedly advised you to do. -- PKtm 17:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything OK Matthew? let me know if you want to chat about this. --Charlesknight 17:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And she's grateful for the advice. Thank you. And you're right, PKtm. --Andromeda 17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi. Please use the upload a new version of this file instead of creating a new file each time, thanks."

How am I suppose to do that it won't let me, it creates a new file instead (with a 2 at the end).

and yes I'm a n00d at this.

"Click on the image you wish to upload a new file for: - Scroll down to "File History" - Underneath will be some text saying "Upload a new version of this file"

Then upload your file and edit image sumamry accordingly"

the file I want to update doesn't say that anywhere, even using the Searching function to find it.

EDIT: And besides uploading the updated image using the same name as the original doesn't allow me to update it, forcing me to create a whole new page for the image.

How do you get all of the print screens of Stargate when I hit print screen I can’t get a picture. It goes black when I save it. I have tried downloading print screen softwhere but it has the same problem. Ideas? Nathan nfm 03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the link. I didn't realized that that was "spam" even though the link was about the show and stuff. Oh well, it doesn't matter. About the link. I was scrolling upwards, and my mouse accidently clicked, and I tried to fix it. I thought I put the right number. Sorry if I wrecked it. I'm a bit tired, so maybe I should get off, and edit at a more appropriate time. :-) My deepest apologizes though.--andrew 09:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never knew about Ctrl Z. I will bare that in mind well editing though. I'll try to be more careful though when I'm tired. andrew 09:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. I'll be heading back to school after Labour Day anyhow, so plenty of opportunities for me to take a photo either before or during that time. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 17:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, if you ever visit the Vancouver area, the garden's worth checking out. It's pretty stunning. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 17:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are speaking of the Daedalus class ship page article, if so, I reverted the changes of user 83.157.119.6 because this is a person who only edited this on a whim for no reason, also, those other stats have been there a while without any provocation from anyone so it's just the case of an anonymous user changing things arbitrarily.

Faris b 22:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pic of the Rose Garden available for use at the University of British Columbia article. I'm not sure if you want to use it though; the colours are really off there (problem with lighting contrast levels). I'll take some Rose Garden photos anyway though, trying to avoid those contrast problems. (I'm thinking of taking a panorama shot, similar to the one I did yesterday for White Rock.) So I guess you can use the existing pic in the meantime while I go out and try to get better shots... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pic of the Rose Garden available for use at the University of British Columbia article. I'm not sure if you want to use it though; the colours are really off there (problem with lighting contrast levels). I'll take some Rose Garden photos anyway though, trying to avoid those contrast problems. (I'm thinking of taking a panorama shot, similar to the one I did yesterday for White Rock.) So I guess you can use the existing pic in the meantime while I go out and try to get better shots... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pic of the Rose Garden available for use at the University of British Columbia article. I'm not sure if you want to use it though; the colours are really off there (problem with lighting contrast levels). I'll take some Rose Garden photos anyway though, trying to avoid those contrast problems. (I'm thinking of taking a panorama shot, similar to the one I did yesterday for White Rock.) So I guess you can use the existing pic in the meantime while I go out and try to get better shots... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about changing table for List of Sliders episodes. I saw that you've been doing something similar. I want to make it like List of That's So Raven episodes or List of Smallville episodes. Do you mind? - Peregrinefisher 19:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about changing table for List of Sliders episodes. I saw that you've been doing something similar. I want to make it like List of That's So Raven episodes or List of Smallville episodes. Do you mind? - Peregrinefisher 19:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the table for the first season. If you want to help, you could add tables, short summaries or writers/directors (imdb,tv.com). - Peregrinefisher 20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I thought it actually existed in the Andromeda universe. I will prod it for you. Let's see if anyone objects. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could just merge all relevant info into a more general article and create a redirect. That would save you time with the AfD and all. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I got lucky though; it was supposed to rain today and I was thinking of waiting until Friday to get my textbooks. But the weather decided to cooperate -- too good an opportunity to pass up. :) They were filming Psych near the Chan Centre today too. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 08:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm trying to hunt down the HaspelCorp location. By its architecture, I think it might be somewhere on campus too. My hunch is one of the Faculty of Forestry buildings (like the Forest Sciences Centre). As for NTAC, I also have a hunch on where the exteriors might be (the interiors are obviously studio-filmed). As a side note, you may recognize some of the university's buildings from Smallville, if you watch that show; it stands in for Metropolis University. Very popular location, the university, especially in a film city like Vancouver. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 08:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver's awesome, especially its film industry. I'm a full-time student, but I work as a film and television extra (or, as they call us, "background performer") on the side. Smallville's an awesome show; I've asked my extras agent to see if she can get me on that show. But I think The 4400 will always have a place in my heart, because my first-ever job as an extra came on that show, in a scene with Andrew Airlie and Laura Allen. Very memorable. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 08:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the barnstar! That was unexpected. :) And yeah... Laura Allen was super nice. Andrew Airlie was a little pissed at the weather that day (it was alternating between sun and cloud, causing chaos for the camera crew, who need consistant lighting for the shots). If you have a good memory, it's the scene when Lily assures Brian that she, Richard and Isabelle are fine and haven't been infected with the promicin sickness, and Brian offers to help anyway he can. I'm the blue-helmeted cyclist who whizzes by him. :) Anyways, I'm going to bed. Thanks again. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can try. I'm a blur. :D -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be rude. You know very well that when someone makes a suggestion it's usually because they don't have time to implement it, especially when that suggestion is for hundreds of episode pages. You also know that I am working on Smallville, and requesting that those that mainly edit the Simpsons, Stargate, South Park, and the OC to tidy up their pages is more responsible than doing it myself. For one thing, I don't watch those shows and really don't have a clue on where to find good information for them. No one has taken the time to properly educate the other users on how to adequately and properly develop an episode article. You were part of the same discussion I was and the subject of how all these other articles are wrong came up many times, but yet you didn't take it upon yourself to inform the usual editors of those pages about the problem. Next time please use a bit of civility and etiquette when someone lists a problem with a page. If they aren't making the changes themselves it's usually because they don't have the time and resources available to do so, but that doesn't mean that it should go unchecked. Thank you Bignole 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not all people consider adding legitimate links spamming, but I guess if it's bothering you so much that it's not up to your quality of O.C. web sites, I'll never touch the article again. Since the site deals with television, and is not some crappy fan site, I thought it would count as a link. Oh well. --andrew 08:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your e-mail for my MSN. I won't be online, as it's 2am and I want to sleep, but you can add me. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i am so sorry, i meant to write a comment explaining why i did so but i stupidly forgot that the popups revert doesn't let you do that after i clicked it out of habbit :#.. what i was going to say is that the svg image has awfully lower quality than the png one and its background is opaque not transparent so it's not much to look at.. --PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 11:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great. Good job. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep deleting this, but it's not a gallery, it's just one pic. How could you have a gellry of just one pic? Also WP:FU says nothing about galleries. Tobyk777 16:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that the next time a user responds to your actions by discontinuing interest in an article you might want to provide a less curt response and maybe foster continued interest in the article and Wikipedia as a whole. WP:BITE. Trivia exists all over Wikipedia, killing this article's trivia section is obviously not top on the list to go. I also disagree with both of your edits (wh was the episode guide nixed?), and have reverted the blanking. For one, the non-existence of a Jericho, KS, and the existence of a Jericho, KS at one time, are both of interest to the article, as there is obviously no Jericho, Kansas to link to. - BalthCat 08:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the navbox now. - BalthCat 08:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you can lighten up this image, 100px, or find another one? It's too dark for anyone not really, really familiar with that scene to tell what's going on. Travisl 22:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going through your updates now (I've been offline over this last weekend's Labor Day holiday), and like where they're going. Travisl 22:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - great content on Wake Up Call (The 4400 episode) and the others. I hope you don't mind me going in and tweaking them like I have been. I haven't been "americanizing" some of the British English spellings I've seen, except I changed "mummy" to "mommy" because it was a quote from a (fictionally) american character. Should I be, seeing that it's a US-produced TV show taking place in the US? I vaguely recall that wiki-policy is to leave it spelled however it was first used in the article, but I'm not certain of that. Oh, and the new image is much better! Travisl 20:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, thanks for putting MyWikiBiz.com up for AfD. Better that it sees the light of day, and discussion is had. Just so you know, I wasn't directing my comment about "failing WP:CORP" to you. I was referring more to the folks who either (a) said that they vote Delete, "per the nominator" (do they not know the meaning of Abstain?), or (b) said that they vote Delete, "per WP:CORP". I find that people who swing that around often haven't actually read it lately, if ever. --MyWikiBiz 16:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're just asking for headaches with this crusade against articles on the nobility. It seems you have other more productive interests here, so I'm not really sure why you've been unable to let it go. I hope it's not some personal vendetta against me (comments like this one make me wonder) because I don't even participate in those discussions (or even pay attention to most of them). I know you were frustrated in our discussion, and I'm sorry about that.

This is clearly something you feel strongly about, but you're bashing your head against a brick wall. I did something similar a long time ago, and I'm glad I moved on. In my case, it was getting rid of articles about minor characters in The Shield and The Sopranos. Consensus was actually on my side in those cases, and I was able to make the changes I wanted, but it was still an uphill struggle. Yours is even more hopeless, because you don't have any of the support that I had. The fact of the matter is that most people feel that even minor members of a royal family are at least as notable as, say, Marco Pacella who (being fictional) has never done anything.

A lot of great contributors enjoy trivial subjects on Wikipedia. Let's be honest: chances are, almost everyone who spends hours on end editing an Internet encyclopedia has at least a little geek in him. Some of them like Star Wars, some like The Sopranos, some like the 4400, some like Dragon Ball Z, some like Magic cards, and some like the nobility. Most of them also do good work editing elsewhere, fighting vandalism, working on Featured Articles, and writing about important real-life subjects. Crusading to stamp out any subject only means we're alienating those fans, and when we do that we lose great editors. Let people have their niche interests, whether it be Nina Jarvis or Princess Luisa Maria. Nobody gets hurt, and everyone wins. Kafziel 23:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "at the time it was taken it was Earth"? That image was taken in July from an episode most likely "The Seige", I did see the image history and I checked it and both images are 100% the same, so did you change it just to have it your way? What is the point of that? Plus, I must assume it was taken from www.stargatecaps.com, they don't even have pics from last night's ep yet and the Daedalus has NEVER been shown in Earth orbit before.

Why are you trying to say you are right? This image was taken from "The Seige" which would make it a pic of it orbiting Atlantis, not Earth.

Faris b 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see what you're trying to do, you're trying to change the pic and it's not working properly, I'm getting the old pic still. Also, that pic was used for the Odyssey in "Off the Grid". Please leave the image alone, the old one is a better shot of it.

Also, what do you mean don't post in the archive? I tried your "leave me a mesage" thing and it doesn't work.

Faris b 20:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then just call him something like a "geek" which I am fairly sure he has been called before, don't just completely revert a new person's edit. J.J. 18:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The after-effects are fixed. And you're not the best one to critique anyone for a small mistake. You heavily broke {{Stargate race}} not so long ago. So lose the condescending tone. --Andromeda 23:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the removal of former website, what if it has 2 websites; its new one and its old one?? godgoddingham ³³³ 16:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not dead tho. The old TV channel still broadcasts old episodes and updates its website, but the show's new channel shows new episodes. godgoddingham ³³³

No. Say you have a TV program broadcast on Fox. It has its own Fox website. Then the program moves to ABC with its own ABC website. ABC show new episodes whilst Fox replays old ones. However both still keep their websites and so it has 2 official websites. godgoddingham ³³³ 17:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was offline when you asked for help, but it looks like it was taken care of. I'm highly dubious about the "brothers" argument, but if "they" can fix the "bug" that was damaging the article, I hope that a consensus can be reached about the paragraph "they" were concerned about. However, if the "bug" is not resolved I'll block both accounts for longer periods. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "rp - prev. has no source & author info + cap already at Sateda article." Just for the record, there is a source and author, if you would read the Rationale. Furthermore, my screenshot was there first with a post tag of 00:56, 5 August 2006 and yours was 07:08, 5 August 2006. On top of that, you broke the established Licensing Standard convention. Your also not supposed to insert screenshots on the individual episode pages. Insertion into the main article, automatically causes the image to be inserted into the individual episode template. This page clearly shows that my image was there before yours, so your reasoning is not justified by saying that it was "already at Sateda article." I'm reverting the change. -therearenospoons 19:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise no policy + Your image had no source. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RTA: Rationale. If you read it, you would have seen it. -therearenospoons 19:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Mine is superior to yours in that it is smaller and shows a key moment in the episode. (PSS: Please do not be offended i changed your image ;-)) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PSSS: It still does not establish a source. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: PS: If you think so then why didn't you state it instead of stating some blatant lie about it not being there. Say what you mean, and not do what you do not say. Lies have no basis. RE: PSSS: I disagree. It couldn't be anymore clearer. If you look at all the Stargate SG-1 screenshots, you will see that none go out and state that. The fact that SG-1 is a Featured List article proves that it is necessary and sufficient. All Stargate Atlantis episodes as well as Stargate SG-1 episode screenshots have the same exact licensing except with appropriate references to their article. For you to go out and change it, you are changing the established convention, therefore making the entire article inconsistent. -therearenospoons 20:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Satedas history, there was no image there when i edited. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah? What is this then? and this: http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5026/proofll9.jpg -therearenospoons 20:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to change it for that reason, change it, but state that you believe it "shows a key moment in the episode" and not some for "has no source & author info + cap already at Sateda article." I'm fine with that as long as it's truthful :) but don't go trying to give others a bad name by not checking the histories :( -therearenospoons 20:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the SGA intro image, you must not have much idea on how wiki works. When you edit "List of.." etc, the image doesnt automaticly get placed in the episode article. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also look here as an example. You do not see my name in the edit history anywhere, but you do see the screenshot. How did it appear? It can only appear from pulling from the List of Stargate Atlantis episodes. I rest my case. -therearenospoons 20:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you want to include the animated series then please correct the year from 1987 to whenever the animated series started. KennyLucius 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article Image:Fotos010.jpg, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "Nn person", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because only articles about non-notable people can be eligible for speedy deletion, not photographs. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:IFD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you tagged the vitsoe article as copyvio ... which it is, but did you also follow the instruction in the template and add it to the discussion page? -- ∞Wirelain 15:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. (my error) -- ∞Wirelain 15:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Matthew,

I would like to know what the reasons were behind your deleting "How to Build a Cat 5 Cable" article that I posted? I personally did not write it, but it was written from someone in my company, and I was posting it here. It is also posted on both of our websites. www.cat-5-cable.com/building-cat-5-cable.html and www.comtradcables.com/cat-5-cable/cat-5-cable.aspx. If you could please list your reasoning behind this action, I would appreciate it.

Hi Matthew. I'm a little confused as to who you changed the link on the Sci Fi Channel in the Battlestar Galactica article to point to scifi as a general article rather than the channel. I'm presuming it was just a slip and I've fixed it. Ben W Bell talk 09:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem, I figured it was just a slip and not deliberate (ignore the edit comment I choose the wrong one from my list). I took the oppurtunity to update it to Sci Fi Channel (which is how they spell themselves these days) and link it to the Sci Fi Channel (United States) page. Ben W Bell talk 10:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have completely re-written this article, and asserted notabilty. Please visit the page, and revisit your nomination and delete vote. Thanks! Aguerriero (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on the new name? I had a great idea to see what they did for the album Solitude/Solitaire, but of course... that one is wrong too. Aguerriero (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Named it Vietnam and Heaven since it is a combination of both those LPs. Thanks! Aguerriero (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

1. Because scifi is a gross insult to my intelligence, and yours too if you are a fan of sf. As a science fiction fan I am not interested in "scifi", and neither is anyone else who knows anything more than a little about the genre. To refer to science fiction as "scifi" is like referring to model railways as "choo-choos". It is a major insult and shouldn't be used by people who should know better - such as Wikipedia editors. Note that there was previously a page called Sci-Fi which explained all this - it now appears to be a redirect, sadly.
2. Everywhere else on the page, the term used as an abbreviation for science fiction is SF - and Wikipedia pages should be consistent. If SF is used on one part the page, it should be used on the whole page.

Please don't use the appalling term "scifi" again. Grutness...wha? 08:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• perhaps it's one of those "different countries, different rules" things, but I have seen real fist-flying fights started by someone suggesting someone is into sci-fi. Grutness...wha? 12:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew, yes I am called David Kendal. I do know you, but i'm not sure where from. Davidpk212 15:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category I made is supposed to be for users with the {{User AAAA}} template on their page. User page categories are by nature unencyclopedic. But I guess you can delete it if you really want to. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, MatthewFenton! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. —Xyrael _{/ 14:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)} 14:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Windows Live Gary Lucy The Brotherhood (Stargate Atlantis) Sanctuary (Stargate Atlantis) Condemned (Stargate Atlantis) Third Watch Aurora (Stargate Atlantis) Before I Sleep (Stargate Atlantis) National Television Awards Elizabeth Weir (Stargate) Windows Messenger David Banks Zero Hour (Stargate SG-1) Corin Nemec Kaitlin Cooper Claudia Black The Eye (Stargate Atlantis) Grace (Stargate SG-1) Phil Redmond

Cleanup Messaging spam Ancient (Stargate) CW Television Network Merge SKY Network Television Trust (Stargate) Live.com Add Sources Windows XP 64-bit Edition Iris (Stargate) Battlestar Wikify Persona Inc. C. J. Bolland KXXR Expand Windows Media Encoder Local-access television MSN for Mac OS X

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 19:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other editors of vandalism when you know it isn't is uncivil. Please conduct yourself with a little more maturity. ed g2s • talk 15:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. --bainer (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that warning without any meaning is considered vandalism and uncivil. Please keep that in mind before you start stalking users because of their behaviour. ed g2s has been in arguments with me before aswell, but warning for something that he believes is policy is not the way to go, I would rather you take part in Wikipedia:Fair use by telling us why screenshots and the like should be allowed on Wikipedia. This message was given to you and Larsinio. Havok (T/C/c) 16:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He believes that screenshots of games should have a "political commentary" to be used in articles. I've e-mail BradPatrick about how illegal it is to have the screenshots there. Until then, just leave it. And I would still suggest you two check out fair use. Havok (T/C/c) 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 an article to a previous version 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.--PKtm 16:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I ment critical commentary ofcourse. Havok (T/C/c) 16:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a long debate at Talk:List_of_Lost_episodes/Use_of_images where our policy has been clarified numerous times. Your edits to that article, and your vandalism warnings are disruptive, and I urge you to stop before you get blocked. ed g2s • talk 16:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your defense of "I'd only reverted twice" on the List of Lost episodes page: Um, yes, you had in fact already reverted to the screenshot version three times, and were clearly on the road (with all the Star Trek "shields at full" rhetoric in your edit comments) to more. Specifically:

12:30, 27 June 2006 MatthewFenton (Talk | contribs) (readd screenies s01 -- unless you can provide a valid reason why there not fair use then they stay! (Shields at full. Ready main rail guns. Ready all missile batteries.))

14:06, 27 June 2006 MatthewFenton (Talk | contribs) (rv -- unless you can provide a valid reason why there not fair use then they stay! (Shields at full. Ready main rail guns. Ready all missile batteries.)

16:00, 27 June 2006 MatthewFenton (Talk | contribs) (rv - 2nd)

In this case, you've now managed, through rhetoric and testosterone, to get the page protected. Not good. "Poking the bear" is not a successful Wikipedia approach. -- PKtm 04:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. But, you misunderstand the WP:3RR policy. Inserting the same basic stuff three times (the screenshots, which had been removed many times before) constitutes three reverts. Please review the policy. I also saw your note to another user, where you wrote, "Yea, I'd already thought about that on my 2nd or third rv i'm going to make a minor text mod thus its not a revert :) ". You can't game the system in this manner, Matthew. -- PKtm 15:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, thanks again for your reply, and your spirited defense. However, you're not getting my point. Please see WP:3RR, where it states,

Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention.

"I added them my self" is not an excuse. They were reverts. -- PKtm 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit of the article on William Gaines? I corrected two spelling errors. You have restored the errors. (Please reply here and not on my Talk page, so that other Wikipedians can follow the conversation.) Pat Berry 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. My software i was using flagged it as possible vandalism and i had a quick look it looked like someone had been throwing in <no wikis>, It was my mistake and ill restore your version now. Sorry. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pat Berry 16:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading a reduced-resolution version of the image. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy, Its not your job to decide which links are suitable for the "External Links" section of the Windows Live Messenger page, if your going to remove all "unofficial" pages then atleast be consistent and remove those outdated MSNPiki and Hypothetic MSN protocol pages (yes, most the information on the websites is years old) both of which are totally unofficial. MessUnit.com might not be an official blog but it sure as hell has up to date information on WLM - unlike this wiki. (I would sign my name but I have no idea how - O-B-Trice)

I noticed you inserted a userbox on your user page, claiming to be a Wikipedia administrator. Please remove it. Thanks. -- PKtm 22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll give me a moment, I'm in the middle of writing a reply on the talk page... — sjorford++ 16:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've reported someone for breaking the 3RR rules. Reverting 3 times IS allowed; it's that 4th reversion that breaks the rule, and I don't see that the 4th has happened. Joyous! | Talk 16:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have asked at least one person to remove Image:Admin mop.PNG from their user-page. Since it was an integral part of their SUBSTituted Admin Userbox, this would appear to be a continuation of your failed attempt to have this image removed from {{User wikipedia/Administrator}}. Please stop this at once. Any further messing about in this vein will be seen as disruption and as such blockable under the blocking policy. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have a personal issue with the Template:User wikipedia/Administrator template and its image, having used the template to falsely claim to be an administrator on your user page.[7] You removed the image when another editor called you on this.[8] Exactly 27 minutes after being called on using this template, you brought this template up for deletion and then, when that failed by a speedy keep decision, tried to have the template's image removed. This is definately a case of WP:POINT and, since consensus on the template's image has been reached, if you revert the template image again that will be considered vandalism. I hope you won't do this. Best,--Alabamaboy 17:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This info wasn't all in the discussion. If you read the above info, it also tells you not to revert that image again or that will be considered vandalism. The info also tells other editors what the situation is with regards to you editing this template. Best,--Alabamaboy 17:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of seeing the issue might be that since admins are the only ones to consistently use the image, they were the one to notice when you changed the image. Personally, I'd let this one go. You seem like a good editor and pursuing WP:POINT issues like this will only tick other editors off. Best,--Alabamaboy 18:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Fenton is not letting me add a link to the MessUnit (http://messunit.com) unnoficcial Windows Live Messenger blog to the Windows Live Messenger page, he claims that im "link spamming" but it's only one site and its much more relevant than several of the other external links, I asked that if he was going to remove my link he should atleast be consistent and remove the link to the Hypothetic MSN Protocol site, because I know for a fact that that site only covers the much older MSN Messenger protocols and hasn't been updated for about 2 years!!! There are also links to several other unofficial sites like Mess.be and MSNPiki - both of which are sites for MSN Messenger and not Windows Live Messenger. This is clearly a case of favoritism. He is enforcing rules that don't exist, and if they do exist hes only enforcing them on the sites he dosn't like.

I am new to Wikipedia and I would appreciate your help. O-B-Trice

I didn't know the incident was so serious. In the future just rv and tell me to go away. :) Ohh, I guess the user doesn't like you much for listing their site for deletion. Hehe. Annoying spammers! :( --Andeh 10:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added them in hope of your forgiveness.--Andeh 10:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your report wasn't copyrighted, because I plagiarised it. :-D --Andeh 10:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MessUnit relisted at AfD. :)--Andeh 14:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there weren't really enough votes for an admin to close it, so it's relisted on todays page. :)--Andeh 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone :Þ.--Andeh 14:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, refrain from editing my userpage in the future. If a page moves, I'll change the link myself. --Andromeda 21:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they mean the same thing. "Stargate Atlantis personnel" makes it seems if the page includes all the people that appear in the series, whereas the list only includes the Earth-born characters permanently stationed in Atlantis or the Daedalus. Perhaps the name can be changed, but that one was not correct, in my view. --Andromeda 13:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they may work. Why don't you comment in the page talk page to see what other people thinks? --Andromeda 14:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are in danger of breaking 3 revert rule on Windows Live Messenger. Please stop and seek consensus now. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However I would like to point out, as a neutral point, galleries of fair use images is copyright violation, as for the other accuations you have made, I am not in a position to comment. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good good, hope thats problem solved. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't freely license those images as Microsoft owns the copyright on the GUI. ed g2s • talk 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall refer you to this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Rights_given. ed g2s • talk 21:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you again to the above discussion. ed g2s • talk 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then feel free to list it at WP:PUI. ed g2s • talk 21:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will unprotect the page soon, but if you restore the gallery again you will be blocked. ed g2s • talk 22:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

webmaster@davidkendal.me.uk is my MSN address. Davidpk212 21:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So a user who very rarely edits suddenly turn up from one of those breaks and starts reverting in an edit war to the same version with the same edit summary as another user in that war. Seems a pretty transparent case of sockpuppetry to me,as indeed the blocking admin also felt. --pgk^(talk) 16:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to do an IP check, sockpuppetry is normally determined by behviour, IP checking is not foolproof it can add weight to a claim of sockpuppetry if found positive, but if found negative does not disprove sockpuppetry. The blocking admin saw traits of sockpuppetry, I looked independantly and reached the same conclusion. --pgk^(talk) 16:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK so you asked him to do it, so he's a meatpuppet then, that's still a sockpuppet. --pgk^(talk) 16:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might also like to read gaming the system, and WP:3RR#Intent_of_the_policy. 3RR is to stop edit warring, doing an number of reverts then asking a friend to continue the war is against the intent of the policy, to stop disruption caused by edit warring, it is in essence gaming the system. If it had been know at the time that he was joining in on your behalf you would both have been blocked. --pgk^(talk) 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I am not willing to unblock since I wasn't responsible for blocking in the first place. I suggest you leave a note for the blocking admin an ask them to look into it. --pgk^(talk) 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this revert to Shane McKenzie, I can see why you reverted (the "sayings" part), but I think the edits were done in good faith. Andjam 02:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have since provided source information in my recently uploaded image and it is now used in the Windows Live Messenger article (replaced your image). So, I have removed your notices on the image page. --Thorpe | talk 12:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I realised that when you said the image (PNG) was taken by you. Did not know you uploaded new version. If you look in the history of Image:WLM.PNG you'll notice I did know. --Thorpe | talk 13:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's good. You are improving which I have nothing against. --Thorpe | talk 23:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEre is a cat you might want to join: Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Battlestar Wiki -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 18:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the BSG logo from the Userbox? It didnt have the text BSG in order to differentiate bwetween just liking the series and actually contributing to the wiki. I have reverted it back as you left no reasson in the edit history for this change. If there is some kind of rule against having logos in userboxes please leave a note on my userpage explaining it. Thanks --Mercifull 09:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note but who did you speak to about it? --Mercifull 10:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Phil Redmond Explore2fs Windows NT 3.51 Elizabeth Weir (Stargate) Jonas Quinn Nacelle Windows Messenger OSCAR protocol Network Neighborhood .NET Messenger Service Windows NT 3.5 Full Alert (Stargate SG-1) Messenger Service Conquercam Resurrection (Stargate SG-1) Winpopup Microsoft NetMeeting Suliban LAN Messenger

Cleanup WinWAP Ancient (Stargate) Messaging spam Merge SKY Network Television Microsoft gadgets Noble metal Add Sources In a Mirror, Darkly (Enterprise episode) Iris (Stargate) List of Starfleet ship classes Wikify Story arc Jim Keogh Gopinathan Expand God complex Windows Media Encoder SkyGI

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 13:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you feel that I am attacking British English and fascists, etc. Both of them are meant strictly to be humorous. Plus, the Brit?American English one is informative. I will gladly remove the one about fascists etc after I write this, it doesn't bother me to do so, but I believe that insinuating that the Brit English usebox is a 'personal attack' is a stretch, as 1)it's a dialect and 2)the personal attacks userbox applies to users. I don't feel that I have insulted anyone with it, or maybe you're the first. Please let me know if it honestly bothers you -Bri 20:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert it, the new version was working fine? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the cleanup templates, we standardised on the blue colour scheme quite some time ago. (We actually have it written into the site's CSS.) I attempted to integrate this into Cwolfsheep's code, but I was unsuccessful. —David Levy 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Regarding your revision of the Daedalus article, you said that it was never stated that the Missiles mk number was using Roman numerals. True though, but I think that it should be reverted back to the way it was. It's pretty much a standard to name those things in the Roman numerals and since Stargate/Atlantis have military advisors, I'm assuming that they would follow suit.

--Faris b 10:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied! (See user talk[9]) Matthew Fenton (contribs)

Ok, I see your point now. I may be wrong but I figured most people know the Roman numerals, I do. -- Faris b 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Interesting. I guess it's a family-centered thing, my family knows them as do I. Thanks for clearing it up. -- Faris b 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied! (See user talk[10]) Matthew Fenton (contribs)

Why do you keep changing the images to yours? The images I provided are Fair Use and they are far better than the ones you keep changing them too. Konman72 01:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The url isn't working because their site is temporarily down. Try it again in a few minutes and it will work fine. I'm changing it back and you have no reason to change it back to your own so please stop. Konman72 10:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"An act of war" are you insane? The image is from stargatecaps.com. Check the main url, the site is down. I have already changed the image, at least wait a while until the site is working. Check out this google search to prove that the site exists...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=stargatecaps.com&btnG=Google+Search

If you click the link now it will not work but if you wait until they get back up then go to "SG-1" then "Season 10" then "Flesh and Blood" and you will find it. Konman72 10:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, my aim is to get the best picture, not my own. So if you can take screenshots then just take one of the scene I am using and I will stop changing the picture. In the one you keep using you can't even see the fighter, which is the whole point Konman72 10:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That pic is great, works for me. I understand wanting to show the battle, but the entry is about the fighter...which you can't even see in that pic lol. Sorry to have gotten into an edit war with you but it seemed like you were just wanting to push your picture into the article, the one now works great in my opinion, so I'll mark mine for deletion. Konman72 11:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry I noticed that as soon as I went back to my watch list lol. Konman72 11:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: several images for deletion. Why are these being deleted? The reason you have provided is "OR". Sorry, but that provides me with little information. Thanks. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 08:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind. Just read what OR means. For the record, all of the images you have nominated for deletion were on my Userpage and on OneCone and thus were not orphans until you removed them. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 08:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I made them, if I changed the licence to self-made and thus free-use, would I be able to have them on my userpage? Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 08:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and about my userpage: I don't know how to use tables, so if you can figure out a way of getting the Infobox on the right, the Userboxes on the left and the "Wikipedian" infobox in the middle, be bold and help me! lol. Thanks Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 09:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, you seem to be taking things too personnally. Avoid this path. As of this image, you may want to warn the original uploader. All I did was just edit the image's svg code to reduce it's size. --Abu Badali 16:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His last blank was 15 minutes ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vala_Mal_Doran&diff=prev&oldid=65263374 Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was also warned numerous times in 24 hours. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks and sounds more like an edit disagreement. Feel free to re-list on WP:AIV and I'll leave it alone - but that edit you gave doesn't look like vandalism to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, what do you know. it seems you finally reported me for vandalism. lol.89.32.1.82 17:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to throttle him for his crappy excuses, vandalizim and lies. --Qho 21:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to throttle who?89.32.1.82 11:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not converse on my talk page -- It is unlikely he watches this page, use your own. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite awhile ago a discussion was held with several people in which we decided that on the OC page that Autumn Reeser and Willa Holland SHOULD NOT be listed in the main cast list until the fourth season debuts. They have been confirmed as part of the cast list, but the decision we came up with was that changes in such an unstable show like the OC shouldn't be listed until they actually take place. Which is why I moved Holland and Reeser from the main cast down to the regulars again. I removed Lisa Tucker as "Guest Stars" generally does not include one who speaks 7 words on one episode of a show and is then never seen nor heard from again. I had changed it quite awhile ago to say "Notable Guest Appearances" to encompass those people (like Tucker) who did not "star" in any episode, yet nevertheless made an appearance in them. There was no blanking of pages involved. Batman2005 20:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might also help for you to learn to assume good faith in edits, rather than just coming and issuing a warning when clearly none was needed. Please don't respond, I don't need your rudeness. Batman2005 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you not to respond, i do not believe you assumed good faith, you told me that I blanked a page....which you were completely and totally wrong about. Good day to you, i'm through with your pointless discussion. I don't assume good faith where none was assumed in the first place. Batman2005 22:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trolling my talk page and inputting your nonsense. You issued a warning where none was warranted, you were proven wrong, if you don't like it i'm sorry, but stop trolling my page. Batman2005 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to user, was uncooperaive and assumed bad faith and was hostile. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew three years ago when I edited and voted for 3RR policy that it would eventually bit me back. So its of course a great irony that an editor with actual "tons of edits" (and not just a sticker which claims so) gets harrassed for 3RR - I assume for the science fiction article - when in fact what I was doing was actually improving it. But maybe youre one of those busy admins who doesnt bother to check out the page they are reading. Thanks, -Ste|vertigo 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..Comments on a talk page, you make it difficult when the discussion is active. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are often only active for a few days or weeks, but remain to be read for years. It's important for wiki-savvy editors to encourage newbies to (A) sign their postings with datestamps, and (B) use the new-topic (+) tab to start a new discussion in the correct place (a failure especially pernicious due to the popularity of blogs, which frequently use the reverse order), so that the rest of the world reading these discussions can follow the chronological flow and understand the development of content discussions. I only did what more active editors of Talk:Dead Like Me should have done weeks ago, when it wouldn't have been so disruptive. Also, you shouldn't post a comment to someone's talk page about an edit without at least citing the page in question. Finally, an ellipsis is three periods (dots), not two. (You wouldn't happen to be a Pascal programmer, would you? ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know pascal sorry, and to recetify this i intend to archive the discussions except the 2 current active ;-)! Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving doesn't solve the flow problem, although it's certainly a good idea, especially now that the discussions are in correct order. (I fixed the remaining order problems after adding some missing timestamps, and also moved a non-sequitur from one topic to its own.) I've added a {{talkheader}} to the talk page to help avoid the situation in the future. (The Pascal reference was a (poor) attempt at computer-nerd humor, alluding to the fact that the it uses two periods as ellipses.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I am perfectly entitled to disput ethe fair use status of that image, and I have, therefore, readded the tag to attract the attention of a third party. The third party should be the one to remove it, not you. Some of the message you left on my takl page was rather impolite, for which there was no need. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging all of my images is quite ridiculous, and I am reporting you at WP:AN/I. See also WP:POINT The JPS^{talk to me} 14:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not blanking. 1) You put back a parameter we worked hard to delete and 2) The colour you put clashes with the other colours. That someone does not agree with your edits it's not "blanking". --Andromeda 15:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I removed text! But that's not blanking. Blanking is removing all text, not just the wrong part of it! And I still don't like your changes, it makes the "Stargate Character" part very hard to read on most races and it's completely unnecesary. --Andromeda 15:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) It can be read, but it's hard. 2) My monitor does not need tweaking, but perhaps yours do. 3) Not everybody that visits Wikipedia has a 20/20 vision. Black text on a dark red background is hard to read. And do not mess with the colours more, please. It took us long enough to reach a consensus. --Andromeda 15:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't, but perhaps you do. That template is the product of the SG project and we had many discussions about it. Use the talk page there to suggest changes.--Andromeda 15:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit was not a revert. --Andromeda 15:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. It was an edit, not a revert. So was 17:14 and 17:15. Didn't you notice I made an error? I had to fix it. So it was an edit, not a revert. --Andromeda 15:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last one is an edit. I edited the page manually, I did not use the revert feature. And once you stop having arguments, you start with threats? How adult of you. --Andromeda 15:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what would that be? Agree with you? I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your changes. I'm willing to discuss them in the project and perhaps we can find a better solution for all parts involved. But I cannot agree with you just because you threaten to report me. I don't get reported and you get what you wanted. I'm sorry, but that's blackmail. If you want to discuss it, I'm open for it. Yes, I made and error and I know it, but I'm not open to blackmail. If I'm blocked for 24 hours, I'll accept it. --Andromeda 15:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Template talk:Stargate character. I think it's the best place to discuss the aspect of the template. --Andromeda 15:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to express an opinion in my recent RfA. I appreciate all the feedback from my fellow editors. One of the rationals you gave for your opinion was per Tony.. If you have the time I would appreciate some suggestions for specific actions I could take to remedy the problems identified by Tony Sidaway. If not, no problem; I still appreciate the feedback. Eluchil404 19:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the typo correction. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 18:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

A car might indeed weigh 2 tons, or even 2 tonnes. But the Prometheus is supposed to mass 2.95 million tonnes, which is six times as much as the largest supertanker even constructed, and nearly thirty times as much as the USS Reagan, which has a crew of 5,600. I'm perfectly willing to accept that it's the correct mass for the ship (hyperdrive engines might be made of neutroneum for all I know), but a citation would be nice. Deadlock 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support on my RFA. The final vote count was (61/9/3), so I am now an administrator. Feel free to let me know how I'm doing at any point in time or if you need anything. Once again, thank you. Wickethewok 15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just to let you know that it is a major part of wikipedia etiquette not to remove the CFD tag (or similar tags) until the discussion has finished. An administrator will remove it should the category be kept. The JPS 13:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I don't know if you've noticed the amount of vandalism the Phil Redmond article is receiving at the moment by an obviously disgruntled ex-employee. Keep an eye on the article for the rant.

As far as the category is concerned: well, I'm warming to it, now that more articles are going into it...

If you're interested in British television programmes, why don't you join the new Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV shows The JPS 23:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

In line with WP:FICTION, characters should usually be included on the series page unless it gets excessively large, in which case major characters only should be given their own pages.

I changed several character pages to redirects (in preference to recommending them for deletion - see point 4 on WP:FICTION) where these were minor characters or there was less information on that page than in the main Hollyoaks article. These were barely long enough to quality as stubs (almost substubs).

Leaving the links in place would have created Wikipedia:Double redirects and would not have served readers. In the unlikely event that the main article becomes so large and these characters sufficiently major that they have full articles of their own, I would be happy to relink to them. --Whouk (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do watch Hollyoaks, yes. Even if you want to treat them as major characters, though, WP:FICTION still recommends including them in the main article. I've joined the discussion on Talk:Hollyoaks which is probably the best place to try to find consensus. --Whouk (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. (Did you make that change? It was an anonymous IP.) I checked against the Hollyoaks website but they're obviously behind :-)

PS: Please remember to sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes like so: ~~~~ --Whouk (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Picture_00002.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 00:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, could I also encourage you to use meaningful filenames when uploading? Cheers. The JPS 01:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew, There's no need to be uncivil. I removed the television schedule information because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's not about promotion, it's about what's appropriate for an encyclopedia. Comparisons to a paper encyclopedia are imperfect, but in this case are appropriate: you wouldn't look in the Encyclopedia Britannica for television schedules, right? Read WP:NOT for more information. Let me know if there are any other questions I can answer for you. --Fang Aili 20:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question at Talk:Main Page and your move of Encyclopedia to Encyclopaedia (which I've reverted), your apparent belief that British English (or "English," as you call it) is the correct, primary or default English language dialect is false. American English is equally valid, as are Canadian English, Australian English, New Zealand English, et cetera.

Wikipedia practice is to incorporate all varieties of English, using whichever is most appropriate within the context of a topic. (The Tony Blair article is written in British English, while the George W. Bush article is written in American English.) When no obvious choice exists, we stick with whichever variety the original post-stub author used (unless there's a good reason not to).

Please do not switch any further spellings to Commonwealth English, unless such a change is performed in accordance with our Manual of Style (which I cited above). Thank you. —David Levy 15:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be forgeting that this is the ENGLISH encyclopaedia, i dont see a place saying American ENGLISH, The english are from england we speak english and are english our language is english so english is english.--Matthew Fenton 17:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "English" does not strictly refer to people and things from England. The English language is widely spoken in many countries other than England, and American English is no less a form of English than yours is.

No, this isn't an American English website (despite the fact that it was founded by Americans, which is why it isn't called "Wikipaedia"), nor is it a British English website. No variety of English is the "correct" one.

Again, please read our Manual of Style before making any further assumptions regarding which form(s) of English should be used here. Also see English Wikipedia. —David Levy 18:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also, if you'd like to contribute to a purely English English Wikipedia, you might want to try ang:. If it is any comfort, the Greek version is called Βικιπαιδεια. dab (ᛏ) 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"No variety of English is the "correct" one." Exactly. But, the majority (or at least plurality) of our readers/contributors are probably American. Sir Elderberry 03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WINDOWS LIVE MESSENGER This is with respect to the Windows Live Messenger screenshot. I hreverted the picture again but reuploaded your file under a different filename and changed the link in the main page so that technically there is no problem and the page remains the same. Koshyjohnuk 13:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English has entered into such wide use across the world and with so many people outside England speaking it, I doubt that the term "English" with regards to the language really has a connection to the country any more. There is not a correct version of English. In matters of style between dialects, regional differences should be considered first (ie, writing the United States article in British English would not be a good idea) and if this cannot help then the best thing to do is keep the article consistent with the current style. We can tell the intention generally, whatever happens. Sir Elderberry 03:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"(Reverted edits by Koshyjohnuk to last version by MatthewFenton (these links do not belong in this article, they violate wlm's terms.. thus do not belong here)) "

This is the reason you left at the history page for reverting the Windows Live Messenger article. Since you made this assertion, the carefully went through the terms of use of WLM and I found that those links do not point to software that in any way violate those terms. Neither do they _violate_ the guidelines at Wikipedia.

I agree that the earlier version of the software may have done so. But the latest one clearly doesn't. Kindly comment on this.

Thank you for your time.

Koshyjohnuk 15:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to inform you that LiveConnect does not in any way modify or change the Windows Live Messenger executable or any of its dependancies at any point of time. Even during the development of LiveConnect, WLM was NEVER disassembled, reverse engineered or decompiled.

LiveConnect makes use of a Windows API that allows you to apply transparency on any open window. All LiveConnect does is make sure that the window belongs to Windows Live Messenger and apply transparency to it. As for the other feature: Bosskey; all that does it hide Windows Live Messenger windows; unlike what most users think there are many states to a window which include: exists, *VISIBLE*, enabled, active, minimized, maximized.

The above two functions of LiveConnect can be applied to ANY running window (like Windows Explorer or Internet Explorer, anything!) at any time without touching the concerned executable or its dependancies. This is similar to what software like AlphaXP does.

Your argument may have been valid when I used to bundle the Protocol Downgrader with it but that is no longer a part of LiveConnect. If you have any other compelling arguments against including the link on Wikipedia kindly let me know.

[I cannot provide more LiveConnect programming details for obvious reasons; but you can verify what I just said by checking if there is any change in any of the WLM files by using a File Compare program; before and after installing LiveConnect.]

Koshyjohnuk 11:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Matt, I'm Ben from Australia. and i have shocking news. I look alot like the contact in this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Add_Nickname.png

my frinds and reltives are amazed at the resemblance. please email me at ubisoft4me@gmail.com to talk about this.

As per this: (diff) (hist) . . m Enterprise (NX-01); 04:37 . . MatthewFenton (Talk | contribs) (It was NOT designated a USS Enterprise, and it was EARTH Starfleet)

I'd like you to know that it is not proper netiquette to type in all capital letters as that is often seen as shouting and is incivil.

There is no need to be incivil during editing disagreements. I urge you to keep a cool head while editing. Incivility is against Wikipedia policy, per WP:CIVIL.

After doing some research, I admit you are correct, the ship was never designated "USS". However, this is still no reason to shout at me. Please stop. — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 02:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MatthewFenton,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.1 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that unfortunately you do not meet our 250 mainspace edit limit, however please try again soon. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 15:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:WLM 80689.jpg. I notice the 'image' 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. Tim 18:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you neglected to read the last section of the image template:

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

You have not done this. A rationale is not simply adding a template. You must justify why you are uploading the image as fair use, see Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. You cannot simply add a template to the image and leave it as fair use.

You have also not specified a source for the image. If you got the image from a website, or if you made the image yourself, you must say so.

Do not worry, I forgive you :)! --Tim 09:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression they were photon torpedoes. I mean, they're named like that, and they looked a lot like the photon torpedoes we saw in other Star Trek series. Aren't they photon torpedoes?

And why did you remove the question? They were valid, NPOV, unasnwered questions. -- Ritchy 23:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough for the torpedoes. There was a better page to link to anyway (here). But that still doesn't explain why you removed the questions, regarding why Starfleet was using technology inferior to what it had available and why the Romulans were using weapons 18 centuries old. -- Ritchy 23:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew: they won't take any notice of your vote (US) unless you write at least "per [names of one or more other reviewers]". Tony 09:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could easily return to the FAC room and add something to validate your comment; I'm keen that the nominators of the US article get off their arses and fix it, and that won't happen unless we apply pressure. Tony 10:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

You might also want to review the other 'contributions' that user has made? ShakespeareFan00 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies go to anyone who has been offended by any of my articles. My aim is simply to notify people outside of Waterford of the kind of things we have going on here. My intentions are not to spam, apologies again if it comes across like that. I am a big fan of everything local. User:Spaingy

Dear Matthew

I have posted content from the Vitsoe.com website as we own this website and the content was created by us. The page I am creating on Vitsoe for wikipedia is using this text as it includes the information needed to discuss Vitsoe (the company) and the person Niels Wiese Vitsoe. The image is also owned by us, however I would like to retain copyright where possible.

Many thanks

Daniel Nelson

Vitsoe 10:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Matthew

If you can remove the text and leave a blank page, I will create a basic page with information about Niels Wiese Vitsoe and leave all information regarding Vitsoe Ltd. off to avoid sounding like we are advertising. My aim is to add information regarding the history of the designs he commisioned as opposed to the current production of the designs.

If we can remove the image also, and I will ensure we can give up copyright before re-submitting.

Thanks again

Daniel

Vitsoe 11:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Matthew

I have now updated the temp page following the instuctions on the page. What else do I need to do?

Daniel

Vitsoe 15:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Matthew

The page is not fully edited, however your instructions indicate that I have control to make the page live again. How can I do this, it is not clear?

Many thanks

Daniel

Vitsoe 16:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Daniel

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Windows Live GameSpy Arcade Gemma Atkinson Phil Redmond Paul Danan Liu Binyan Gary Lucy Windows Live Local Blue Kaffee Web Radio Canon PowerShot A620 Google Labs DStv Aurora Engine Gerard Batten Sally Lindsay Corin Nemec River Ouse, Yorkshire Windows Messenger Australian archaeology

Cleanup Jeremy Edwards Yahoo! Mail Main lobe Merge Live.com SKY Network Television Science fiction Western Add Sources Google Groups Froogle Battlestar Wikify Aptronym Pierre Coupey Wavel Ramkalawan Expand Nikon Coolpix series Local-access television Pazhuvil Church

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 23:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, let's face the facts. Both Galatica and Pegasus took nukes with little damage, while Basestars have been devasted by Battlestars' guns, which may or may not be nukes. Basestars most defintely lack the armor of battlestars, and with external pods for raiders, it is a logically conclusion that these pods indicate, as I stated, that they lack armor.

Considering the lack of any "real" stats on the ships, almost every statement on Battlestar Galatica episodes must involve educated deductions. My contributions are based on the only canton sources avaiable (ie. what we see in the episodes themselves) We are agreed that basestars cannot take as much punishment as Battlestars. We are also agreed that when the basestars were hit, they were not with nukes (considering the few that they have). If conventional weapons causes that much damage to basestars, we can deduce it lacks armor compared to battlestars. Thanks. Drew

I would like to question why you removed Messenger Plus! Live from Windows Live Messenger. I felt it was a necessary addition to the article, as the two items are closely related. I did not see it as "spam". - Mewtation 10:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I replaced the fake commercial site with the official crocodilehunter.com pages. And did so again today. www.crocodilehunter.com is the Irwin family's official site, including Bindi Sue Irwin's pages. www.bindiirwin.com and www.bindisueirwin.com are namejacked fakes. Hdw 16:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the incorrect edits made by the bot; I'm just going to investigate to see what happened. --ais523 08:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I use dates to prefilter the AfDs to search (it only considers AfDs at least a week old), but then decats them only if they contain the string 'The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.' which is normally only found in closed AfDs. The thing that's confusing me is that some of the misdecatted AfDs didn't contain this string, and yet the bot is decatting them anyway; it's skipping other AfDs that don't need decatting, and as yet I have no idea why. If you understand JavaScript, see User:Bot523/monobook.js for the decatting logic (the bot is loaded up by an external program on each AfD in turn). --ais523 08:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your change broke pages like Sigourney Weaver that don't specify the parameter. Here is the template substed before reverting so you can see:

Sigourney Weaver
[[Image:Ellen ripley.jpg		]] Sigourney Weaver in Aliens
Birth name:	Susan Alexandra Weaver
Date of birth:	October 8, 1949
Birth location:	Manhattan, New York City
Height:	1.82m (5' 11½")[2]
Notable role(s):	Ellen Ripley in Alien and its sequels
Academy Awards:	None; however she has been nominated.[4]

--NE2 15:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next town on it :) Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 20:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

em..er.. if you have a moment - could you take a look at my userpage - the barnstar is all squashed and it would better if those four boxes were together. Any help would be much apperciate.

regards

--Charlesknight 21:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! --Charlesknight 21:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Matthew. I want to ask for your opinion about something before I go embarrassing myself at the Prison Break talk page. Do you think the "cast and characters" section would be better if the format was changed to that of Lost (TV series) since the list is getting reordered frequently and increasingly long. Another thing is about the general improvement of the entire Prison Break article. I am going to ask for suggestions at the Talk:Prison Break for sections to be improved and added like "critical response" or something. Your help would be appreciated, thanks. Ladida 00:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Ladida 12:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MatthewFenton, for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Random

Yep! You? -- Ladida 10:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - the Bellick/Nika thing made me sick though *pukes*. :) Anyway, do you think the Prison Break#Cast and characters is ok? I'm rewording it a little bit right now. -- Ladida 10:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Windows Live Messenger. Why? (It's probably easier and faster to talk there.) -- Ladida 10:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding you now. You may not recognise the address since it's different to my wikipedia username. :) -- Ladida 10:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konstable's RfA thanks

Hi MatthewFenton, thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which was closed as successful last Wednesday with a unanimous support of (47/0/0). I will do my best to help keep Wikipedia clean, green and vandal free. Once again, thank you! --Konstable 14:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox actor template

How do you use an image smaller than 220 px, without the image being distorted? --DrBat 15:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. That helps a lot. :) --DrBat 16:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Lost barnstar for you

Hi, Matthew,

I haven't had the pleasure of giving out one of these for a while, but I noticed the fine work you've been doing in helping organise the Lost Wikiproject, as well as the List of Lost Episodes. I'm happy to see new editors with enthusiasm to improve the efforts of past editors (such as myself.) Much thanks! -- Leflyman^Talk 03:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. Consensus to promote was reached, and I am now an administrator. I'll be using the tools cautiously at first, and everyone should feel welcome to peer over my shoulder and make sure I'm not doing anything foolish. --Robth^Talk 04:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thanks for your noteDlohcierekim 13:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't see a problem with it...

...and frankly thats the least of the three concerns I mentioned. I'm someone who thinks talkpage histories should be preserved (which is a key part of the GFDL, though I realize that talk pages don't need to adhere to that), specifically so that people can recall past interactions. I always try to recall past interactions with users when they go up for RFA, and the fact that I couldn't find any when I remembered making comments on your talk made me think that you had something to hide. Its only because I am admin that I could find my edit in the history of that page, and we cannot do diffs on deleted pages.

I'm not trying to be mean or discourage you. I'm trying to be as specific on my objections as I can so you know what I would have done differently were I in your place. :) Syrthiss 15:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (50/3/0). If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free to write me. I hope I will live up to your trust. Michael 01:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Barnstar Brigade Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors! What's New? September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves! Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there! The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The proposals page has been updated, with some proposals being archived. Since the program in development Appretiaion week is getting lots of good ideas, it now has its own subpage. The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself! The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it! TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly! Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

Doctors

I changed the photograph back as there may be a chance, however slight, of using the old cast photo again, much in the same way as Silent Witness. As such you should have uploaded the new cast photo under a different name, such as, say, Doctors 2006? (Pally01 09:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• I understand the need to keep uptodate but that the old cast photo could be used somewhere else in the article to show the genesis of the programme and probably wouldn't have been oprhaned. I understand the EastEnders article does the same. However I will bow to your better technical knowledge. (Pally01 12:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • I would be happy to collaborate on the article. I think that part of the problem with it is the lack of information that is available on the programme compared to the other soaps and the fact that it has less viewers. However the cast turnover is less which can lead to a greater depth to the characters. I'll have a think and let you know. (Pally01 12:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The Halo's RfA

MatthewFenton... Thank you very much for your neutral comments in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your opinion, and will try ad take your comments to heart. Yours, Thε Halo Θ 00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tireless Contributor's Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I award MatthewFenton this Barnstar for his tireless and quality work on the Battlestar article and its various spin-off articles. SergeantBolt (t,c) 00:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

No problem. You deserve it! SergeantBolt (t,c) 08:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canon stuff

I didn't think it was rude, and I'm all for canon-only material. --EEMeltonIV 20:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA vote

Please reconsider your oppose vote on this RfA. Thank you.--Andeh 12:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lefty's RfA thanks

Hi, MatthewFenton, and thanks for supporting me in my recent request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa

Why did you revert my edits? I was doing an Rfa. Thank you. Hmrox 20:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me how to do it correctly? Hmrox 20:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly

I asked specifically in #wikipedia whether infoboxes were meant to replace text, and they aren't. An article, a good one, should survive having all infoboxes deleted. Besides, science fiction is not the "primary genre" of Firefly, because it is as much a comedy as it is a science fiction show. Space, western, comedy. All of those are incredibly important to the nature of the show. If you are a fan, I'm sure that you were more impressed by the comedy than you were the space ships or the fact the story occurs on different planets. I'd break 3RR if I changed it, but I consider the inclusion of comedy-drama to be important. I will look for a compromise when I'm not so tired. (Perhaps a full sentence explanation, since I get the feeling that people are afraid of the string of wikilinks.) - BalthCat 07:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps: You might have been right to slash the Jericho trivia page, it's swelled to about 1/3 the article, and caused a bunch of anon-IPs to get all cranky because I didn't want to let them guess where Jericho was. - BalthCat 07:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright vio on Battlestar page

Just to make clear that the wikipedia article has had many elements copied from the bswiki and not the other way around so i re-added the tag. --Mercifull 08:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The 4400 episodes screencaps

It looks like your recent edits dropped out the screencaps for seasons 1 and 2. Was this intentional? Travisl 14:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks very much! I'm glad you think my edits are good! SergeantBolt (t,c) 17:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier synopsis

Go ahead and send your draft synopsis to me at The4400 AT lauricella DOT net (having your own domain is nice!). It'll likely be late tonight (early morning for you) before I get to it, though. Travisl 22:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctors

Just because we have a Wikipedia naming standard that puts articles at the singular (i.e. physician instead of physicians), that doesn't mean that people will always search that way. Of all the things people might be looking for when they type in "doctors", the most important and original meaning is clearly "physicians", and so that is the least surprising place for it to redirect to. The soap opera is, after all, just a soap opera. — sjorford++ 09:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time and Again

Nitpicks are meta information about the episode just like the Notes section. When does one include one, but can't the other? Are only some nitpicks allowed? Perhaps not filming errors, but only plot holes?

Icefox 20:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

He really said "..F*****G HELL! I need to be an admin NOW!"??? Thanks in advance Glen 10:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{lame}}

{{lame}} is now fully Speedy nominated. If the template gets taken off please feel at liberty to TfD it. This thing has to go. I'm going to bed and hope it will be gone by morning. (the template, not the bed) :) Fiddle Faddle 22:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! noincludes. Well I know now! I bet I forget though Fiddle Faddle 22:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DAB links

Hello, I noticed you reverted one of my edits regarding the situation of the dablink of Lost (TV series) [11]. I would like to ask why (I don't understand your log). This change is important for accessibility reasons: the dablink should appear before any contents, including infoboxes. Best regards, --surueña14:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It fits more comfortably if the dab link is underneath the infobox space and quashes out extra whitespace :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Note this is a policy (see Wikipedia:Accessibility), so I'll redo my changes in that article. Please, in the future adhere to this policy, it will help not only disabled readers and editors but all of us. Thanks -surueña 14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a guideline... Also it helps me in no way except making the page hard to read. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make the page harder to read, and has several advantages (and it's of paramount importance for blind users, or people accessing Wikipedia with a mobile phone browser, for example). You are right, it's not a policy but a guideline. Anyway, I don't see this article special, and therefore that part of the WP:MOS should be observed too. Thanks. --surueña 15:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I always watch talk pages when I leave a message, so it's easier to have the discussion in only one place. Best regards.

Q4

answered - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Your RfA

Matthew, in response to your query on my talk page about my oppose reasons there are two points in it. The first is that I was moved to oppose you as I have very high standards in respect of civility. I do not presently recall when it was that we interacted and it was probably only briefly but I did check histories and contributions before I made that comment which was likely sparked by something minor that led me to look deeper. The point about Esperanza was a point about Esperanza and is that every time I found an editor to be incivil, including gross incivility and assumptions of bad faith, they were a member of that group. I alluded to the straw/camel's back analogy as I wanted to make the point about EA membership while retaining the impression that I did not feel that you were responsible for any great incivility, or assumptions of bad faith. I have not been around much on wikipedia lately and do not have a set of diffs to present to you but I will say that my previous impression is that you are a very valuable contributor and that is expressed best when you are considered in your discussion points and is expressed less ably when your response is swift. MLA 14:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Lois and Clark

Thanks for your help with the infobox. I've got it working now. Thanks! Think outside the box 18:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

City Ship picture

Yeah, the picture is kind of blurry, and i'm still looking for a better one. but i still think that the picture in the infobox should present the city ship as an actual space ship, thus in space. especially since the picture of atlantis sitting on the ocean is not very "space ship-like". but fine, i won't change it for the time being. Maartentje 10:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I approached the article when i wrote it some time ago was that Atlantis (Stargate) discribes the subject as a city, and Ancient City Ship discribes it as a space craft. Maartentje 10:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Maarten, not Marteen :D Maartentje 17:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy nomination restarted

Since you have were involved with discussion before at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you might appreciate knowing that the nomination for the Buffy articles has been restared at the same wiki page. I am letting everyone know who might not be aware (whether they were for or against the article becoming featured). Cheers -- Buffyverse 22:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the Warning

Thanks for warning me of an impending bloodbath, Fenton! I was expecting it anyway. I'll keep the nomination up, regardless. If I don't succeed (which I know I won't), I'll at least have a better understanding of what I need to do. Thanks again! -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

RfA thanks from StuffOfInterest

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 52/6/1 (~90%). It was an interesting process which gave me a chance to learn a bit about myself and about the community. My intention now is to slowly ease into using those additional buttons on my page. No use being over eager and mucking up the works. The support of all those who went over my record and/or rallied to my defense after the big oppose vote was instumental to the success of this review. Again, thank you! --StuffOfInterest 11:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fiction / SF... hiya!!

Hi Matthew, I reverted an anon who made wholesale replacement of SF with "science fiction" as well as a minor formatting error. I annotated my revert, citing the current discussion on this topic on the Talk page, so I wonder if you think my initial revert was incorrect. I was really just trying to suggest that that anon come and join the discussion which does not appear to have reached any consensus against "SF", and which possibly seems to be leaning in the opposite way, ie there are good stylistic reasons to use "SF" on occasion. Let me know what you think. Thanks heaps. Leeborkman 07:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, okay, I see that you have voiced your concerns about the use of "SF" on the talk page. Actually, I would happily go with that alternative article title you mentioned... "Science Fiction (SF)", but there are many other ramifications when retitling an article. Anyway, as I have said, I consider "SF" to be a standard and synonym for "Science fiction" that could and should be used to make the text less clunky. Do you think that the discussion on the Talk page is approaching any kind of useful consensus, or can you see any way of ever reaching an acceptable compromise? What do you reckon? Thanks. Leeborkman 07:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, Matthew. I really don't assume that the reader is familiar with the subject's abbreviations, which is why I explained the abbreviation in the opening sentence of the article. Is that not sufficient to put the reader at ease? Leeborkman 07:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't agree with your sentiment that abbreviations necessarily cause "hell". An abbreviation, properly used, makes for easier reading, in exactly the same way that properly used pronouns do. But I guess we are not likely to ever agree on that one ;-) Leeborkman 07:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a strange argumnet you raise when you say that "SF" could mean anything outside the field of Science Fiction. Well yes, it could, but I'm not sure why you think that that is an argument against using the abbreviation. It's simply an argument for using the abbreviation carefully and properly, ie when the context makes it clear which possible meaning of "SF" is being, and when the use of the abbreviation makes the text flow better. once again, I believ that pronouns are the crucial analogy: the word "he" could mean anybody when you remove it from its context, but that certainly doesn't mean that this pronoun should never be used. See ya. Leeborkman 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is anyone arguing for "sci-fi" as a synonym. We have a couple of current professional practitioners, as writers and critics, who agree that SF is in fact now a universal synonym for "science fiction" (assuming the relevant context, eg we are not talking about great cities of California), while "sci-fi" is not. Anyways... I've got to run. Good to talk with you. Leeborkman 07:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OnelinerTOC

Wow, thanks!!! The template rocks now :-) Renmiri 18:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Battlestar

Are you sure that List of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series) episodes is a better name than List of Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) episodes. I know it covers some other stuff, but (re-imagined series) doesn't sound standardized. The miniseries is basically a pilot for the show, and webisodes should probably be put on the main BG2004 page. - Peregrinefisher 07:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Heroes Logo

I don't see it failing any of the rules that you listed. Many other articles on TV series use the logo as their image rather then a picture of the cast. Most of them are older shows as well. I don't care one or the other if it is up there. I just thought it would make the page look nicer, but I think your objections to having it up are invalid. --Pinkkeith 19:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just agree that we don't agree and leave it at that. --Pinkkeith 19:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Corrections on The O.C. wikipage

I just wanted to clarify my actions regarding the removal of rumors about Season Four from The O.C. wiki, since you seem to be the head honcho over there for keeping everything legit. The Daily Mirror (where the "info" came from) is a notorious UK tabloid/newspaper -- specifically notorious for (surprise, surprise) its lack of foundation for many of the claims it makes. I honestly couldn't come up with a better way of including the rumors without basically lambasting the Mirror on the wikipage itself, and since the source is less-than-solid, chose to remove the unsubstantiated claims altogether. If there's some way you can think of to include the info from the Mirror's article, please do -- but until it can be made clear that the info is probably total bunk, I think it's a waste of valuable wikispace to include it and mess with peoples' heads. Hope this finds you well!

P.S. I happened to see that you were removing the constant shameless plugs by the guy on the Heroes wiki (noticed the other day, but didn't add two and two together); just for the record, you're totally right to be stopping that kind of ridiculousness, and I was glad you were doing it.

Peace.

JasonDUIUC@gmail.com, if you want to reach me.

Thanks for the quick response, I actually went ahead and made the change and just a condensed comment about the caveat and sourcing in the remarks (for all to see, not just you and me). Yeah, I don't necessarily DISLIKE the Mirror, it's just that using it as an official source of info would be tantamount to saying that Tom Cruise is really an alien (similar-quality tabloid headline I saw recently). In other words, mostly it's good for a laugh and maybe a few kernels of real information or editorial commentary, but totally lacking in source-level integrity.

Again, thanks, and take care!

Indeed I am!

--Mcdreamy 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Jericho article

Matthew, before you remove the trivia section again, please see the comments on trivia on the article's talk page. Thanks. 205.188.117.67 08:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Nice work on the BSG articles

-) Checked up on them. BattlestarWiki interwiki link has been fixed. Might want to link to the BSGWiki on the episode pages. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 06:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... [[BattlestarWiki:xyz]]. I got it added to the list in the new version of Mediawiki a while back. It just became active with the 1.8 series. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 07:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit of Occupation (Battlestar Galactica)

• I have conformed to NPOV policy; you do not understand the policy. Please read up on it.
• I have conformed to the Weasel words policy; you do not understand the policy. Please read up on it.
• You are in repeated violation of the deletion policy.
• I have provided the sources you asked for; you have refused to view them, and asked "Why would I want to click these?"
• I can fix your vandalism as fast as you can create it, so why don't you save all of us some time by editting the new section to make it conform to your desires a single time, instead of deleting it 400 times?

Tjic 11:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"It's patently obvious I haven't" ... what?

Tjic 12:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy

Certainly here's the source. [12]. This is from the official ABC press release site. I will also change the photos to (tv-copyright) as you asked. Sfufan2005 21:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost fan sites

Matthew, I see you're a Lost fan. I'm asking for support for my proposals on the linking of Lost fan sites. They are very brief and easy to understand. Please weigh in there if you've got a second. Thanks, --Loqi T. 03:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AutoWikiBrowser

Thanks for the tip, it's just that I need 500 edits before I can apply. Have a good day! Pax:Vobiscum 07:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

warning

The very next time you erase a comment from a page, I will contact an administrator. Charlesknight's words also insult wikipedia and it is the job of a good wikipedian to get rid of them. Your behavior is unacceptable. As I told you before, I don't care what relationship you have with the user. Hungrygirl 13:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

I've moved your post to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Matthew_Fenton_and_Hungrygirl. Alphachimp 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA thanks

Hi, MatthewFenton! Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 75/0/1! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Feel free to send me a message if you need any assistance. :)

--Coredesat 14:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Removing a deletion request

Please don't remove a deletion request. That is considered vandalism. 25,000 on Alexa refers to the whole of wikia.com not its subdomain. Thirdly, the writers of LOST contributing to Lostpedia is not considered grounds for an article, so why should Memory Alpha be any different? --90.192.92.77 22:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA question

Hiya, I'd like your opinion on something. I saw that someone in the adminship discussion had expressed a concern about my mother's article. I understand the concern, but in reality, I haven't made a single edit to that article. Do you think I should reply with that information, or just let it go under a "He has a right to his opinion"? --Elonka 22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.  :) --Elonka 16:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screencap for Collision

Hope you don't mind - I replaced your screencap with one from just a few frames earlier (and edited out the "Global" station id). I thought that the expression on FutureHiro's looked a bit odd in context and the serious look suited the mood better. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize? Maybe?

Mr. Fenton (I'll call you Matt), on behalf of Lostpedia I would like to apologize for the confusion of people calling you a "vandal." We are sorry for the ban you received, but the reason you were banned was not listening to SySops, no matter how mush they told you to stop. Whoever uploads images has the option to credit himself or not, and they certainly dont need others doing it for them. I beleive an apology on your part will get you back on Lostpedia. If you wish to return. Namaste and good luck --Iron Chef 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (User:Onelastword) on Lostpedia.[reply]

P.S: It worked for me.

and i'd like to apologise on behalf of... erm... me, for iron chef having the tenacity to apologise on behalf of a website that nobody has the authority to apologise for in general. also, you might want to see the discussion raised at the policy village pump or indeed Jimbo Wales' LOST wikia talk page. (rereading this, if it comes across in tone as anyway hostile, it's not. iron chef's post just irked me somewhat) --Kaini 04:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungrygirl.. Twentyboy..

You said: "Would a check user be in order to establish if there are any "sleeper" accounts in waiting?"

I agree this would be useful but I'm not sure if this is actually possible. I know for sure I can't do it.  :( --Yamla 16:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hey Matthew,

I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed unanimously with a final tally of 38/0/0. I appreciate your trust, and will do my best to uphold it. Don't hesitate to let me know if you ever need anything. — TKD::Talk 05:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

user page

I rather liked your user page, why did you blank it? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

Please reconsider.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 11:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Helen Keller, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Martinp23 12:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing me this. As you may have seen from the edit summary, this warning was posted with VP2, and I have no idea whatsoever why it went to you. I apologise, and I will report the error on IRC -- Martinp23 13:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've sent a message to AmiDaniel on IRC with Memoserv. Again, sorry :) Martinp23 13:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messenger

Yes, I'm on MSN Messenger as pktm1@hotmail.com. -- PKtm 21:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

apology accepted

I didn't quite understand your message, but, yes, your apology is accepted. Thank you for reading up on wikipedia norms. Tjic 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where to put this but how can quotes not belong in the quotes/trivia portion of an episode page? that doesn't make any sense. I mean sure maybe I need to cut down as many as I used but you might as well call it the trivia section if there isn't suppoes to be any quotes.

Jack Harkness

I didn't want to overwrite that image because I wanted to keep the names consistent. If it bothers you, I could always erase the old image. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bad editing

I dealt with an edit you made. Don't let it happen again The Gayboy 15:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Hello

No I certainly do not, should I...However that is a Beautiful pic however on your userpage, did you take it.--Prince of Dharma 16:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

AIM

I don't really IM. I'm pretty responsive to my talk page though, it's like a slow IM. - Peregrinefisher 19:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got MSN Messenger going, but I'm not sure how to use matthew@derwafflehaus. Shouldn't it be at msn.com or something? I haven't IM'd in a few years. - Peregrinefisher 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Location of references in Heroes

Is there a good reason *not* to list references at the very bottom? It makes a good deal of sense to place them there, as one would when crafting an essay. I didn't mean to do that twice to the heroes page, I didn't see your revert, sorry. --DJ Chair 21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

misuse of vandalism template

Please don't use vandalism templates in content disputes. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not. But you might want to refer to WP:DR. In your particular case you might get some support due to the history of the other party scraping pictures of Google and uploading them with incomplete/wrong licencing info. Agathoclea 22:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Hamedog's RFA

Quite honestly, did you need to ask this user if his request for adminship was a AFD? From someone who makes typos occasionaly, I can see someone typing in AFD instead of RFA. If you're question was in good faith, I apologize, but that kind of pointing isn't really needed. semper fi — Moe 01:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. I do however very much appreciate your comments, and found them very encouraging. Please rest assured that I am still very much in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chat

Hi,

Yes, I have used those; but no, I'm not on regularly. Best, --Leflyman^Talk 07:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email

check your email. --Charlesknight 21:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:B5 garibaldi.jpg

Thank you. Of course, you are right. A free image could not reasonably be created for a fictional character. It's theoretically possible but that's pedantic and stupid. When I added that tag, I was thinking only of the actor. I'll remove the image from the actor's page and we are good to go. Thank you for your patience. --Yamla 20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Pages

Matthew, I am renaming the Jericho episode pages to use the format "Episode Name (Jericho)" instead of "Episode Name (Jericho Episode)." This is actually one of the requested changes on Talk:Jericho_(TV_series), and is according to the standards stated on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television_episodes under "Structure of an episode article."

These changes do not appear to be controversial, as you state, but quite the opposite. Would you like to discuss this on the Jericho talk page? --TobyRush 19:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it, though... the talk pages for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television_episodes and Jericho (TV series) reflect no controversy about the naming conventions; if you disagree with them, you should bring them up there so those trying to improve Wikipedia can see that the topic is being debated. Your reversions are the only signs of anyone disagreeing with this convention that I have seen. --TobyRush 19:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The {{TelevisionWikiProject}} infobox at the top of the Talk page, as well as the request to rename the episode pages, indicate a consensus that the Jericho pages are aiming to follow those guidelines. I'm not saying I disagree with the format that you're advocating, but if everyone in a group agrees upon something but you, it remains a consensus until you voice your opinion... preferably before reverting someone who is trying to assist in maintaining consistency.

Is there a "competing" project which uses the naming standard you prefer? If not, why not bring this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television_episodes? I look forward to seeing your contributions there. --TobyRush 20:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The project you cite is something small with a few paticpants, a discussion among them does not equate to a project consensus" -- it does if you don't speak up. I've brought this up on Talk:Jericho_(TV_series). Let's move our discussion there so others can contribute. --TobyRush 20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ori weapons

Ok, I see what you mean but it should be noted that it's slightly different than a normal pulse weapon.

Faris b 20:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That format works for me.

Faris b 20:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images in lists

Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woot!

Hurrah! --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lost102.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lost102.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 19:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

'sup?

Sup? -- Peppery ^{[ userpage | talk]} 07:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4400 WikiProject

Just because you're mad at me for supporting a delete of those episodes, and removing a policy violating recommendation from the WikiProject, does not give you the right to make false accusations. The policy that Wikipedia is not an episode guide overrides a goal that you alone added to a WikiProject. That which violates policy and does not have a consensus to back it up does not need a consensus to change it. I have done nothing wrong and I find it highly absurd (and ironic) that you are finding my edits rude. You disagree with me on some stuff, and that's ok. Don't behave like this just because of some disagreements, trying to take such an absurd low blow. -- Ned Scott 08:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, I strongly urge you to please re-read WP:CIVIL. --Elonka 08:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said anything uncivil. -- Ned Scott 08:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting beyond absurd. -- Ned Scott 08:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's typical Matthew Fenton tactics. Wantonly purge and censor, then hide behind a Wikirule and pretend he's innocent. *That* is what's absurd. 66.90.151.114 22:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please give the rfa a chance

2000 edits with no real problems (check my history) Rewired 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  18:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, strangely (and Matthew can check my maths) - you have about 10 edits the last I checked - and not a single one is to an article... --Charlesknight 18:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguation

Hi, Matthew. You seem to be frequently restoring the disambiguation (Torchwood) after Torchwood episodes that don't need it. This has been discussed at Talk:List of Torchwood episodes. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Episode articles. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galactica External Links

I'm sorry, but a link to a (non-commercial) podcast who's sole purpose is to discuss "Battlestar Galactica" is completely appropriate for the "External Links" section of the BSG TV show page.

Deleting it simply because it was added by the Podcast producer is pretty silly. If it would make you feel better, I can have one of my listeners edit the page.

I'm offended both at your characterization of my link as "spam" and your assertion that I need to "learn more about Wikipedia" (I've been editing here longer than you have).

Alight 15:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BSG "Spam"

Why have you not deleted the following external links?:

   * BattlestarWiki 
   A "fan" site
   * Battlestar Galactica at Scifipedia
   Another "fan" site
   * Official Battlestar Galactica: CCG Website
   A commercial-link to a manufacturer's site selling a BSG-related product

Your contention that my link is "non relevant to the article" is ridiculous. How is a link to a podcast who's sole subject is the subject of the article "non relevant to the article?" Alight 15:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wanton Edits On The Jericho Pages

Matthew, enough is enough. The recent edits you've made on the pages for unaired episodes were wanton and unnecessary. You deleted them without taking note of the nature of the subject material, and by all accounts you did so only because *I* posted the information.

Again, enough is enough. It's become very obvious that you're trying to "own" the Jericho pages like you've done over on the Lost ones. I could care less what you do to the Lost pages, as I've AbZero interest in that series. But what you're doing is *causing* the disruption of Wikipedia that your so-called rules prohibit.

Stop. Now. Contribute positively *without* censoring out of spite. 66.90.151.114 21:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments would have more weight if you weren't using an anonymous account. Might I suggest creating a username, and providing diffs of your concerns? --Elonka 01:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BSG Page

Excuse me, but can you please point me to where it indicates you are the owner of the BSG page and the sole arbiter of what constitutes spam?

I'm going to end this edit war at this time, because your maturity level precludes me from carrying on a civil discourse with you on this matter. I hope you are happy with the many "friends" you seem to have made on Wikipedia with your antics. Live and be well. Alight 14:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's our Matthew. Some egos just won't die. 66.90.151.114 02:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

b5 template

Yeah, I noticed it messed up some articles and I was trying to figure out how to fix it. Sometimes it looks better if it's centered (like at the bottom of a short article), and sometimes better on the right. I wonder if <center> would override the template's align=right. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It'd be cool if the optional parameter was there; thanks for offering to do it. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 20:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neat, thanks for doing that. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 21:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, regarding your vote on the recent RfA; you have placed it in the wrong section – and that user is a very recent; I wonder why you ended up supporting him. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happens to me all the time. LOL. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 14:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested

Hi - I saw that here you used and emoticon, using {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} - this sort of spurred me into creating a single template to do all sorts of emoticons, both with :) forms, :-) and =) (with all the other feelings too). You can see it at {{emot}} - just thought I'd let you know, if you're interested Template:Emot Martinp23 16:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it Template:Emot Martinp23 17:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelBillington

If you want, could you explain what problem you find with Image:2006 census Australia.png, which you cited in your opposition to MichaelBillington's RfA? I can't figure out what you see wrong with it, so it might be a good idea to clarify your comment (although it's probably just me being stupid and not seeing something ). Thanks. --Slowking Man 20:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlexLips

He also edited the Heroes (Disambiguation) page, removing the NBC Heroes show off of it. Heroes (Disambiguation). I fix it already. I'd say just ban him, if you have that power. --Cpryd001 11:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

RE: Trivia Pages

Matthew, are you planning on eliminating the trivia sections for the Battlestar Galactica pages as you did on the Jericho pages? Just curious. 24.242.148.169 03:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, Matty. Any answer? 66.90.151.114 02:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^ Sigourney Weaver at the IMDb.com. URL last accessed 9 September, 2006.
2. ^ Sigourney Weaver at the IMDb.com. URL last accessed 9 September, 2006.
3. ^ Sigourney Weaver awards at the IMDb.com. URL last accessed 9 September, 2006.
4. ^ Sigourney Weaver awards at the IMDb.com. URL last accessed 9 September, 2006.