User talk:Palpatine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Padme Amidala

[edit] Succession Box

Re Padme - Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is the Queen of the UK and many Commonwealth Realms - she is a monarch but she is also Queen Elizabeth II just as her father was King George VI - Padme was Queen of Naboo and Veruna was King of Naboo. --PMA 11:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palpatine

[edit] "Supreme Ruler" image

Hello my friend -- if I may call you such. I see you like our dear, beloved, megalomaniac who needs no introduction. I am writing because you may have noticed that I supplanted your “New ‘supreme ruler’ image” with a similar image I uploaded. Mine is fuller, but yours is closer. We both noted the lack of resolution of the image that WAS there before. And I can guess how much you liked uploading the image. However, it’s very dark in the upper half – and that’s the most important area: his face! Can you brighten the image a little to make it clearer? It would be appreciated from a fellow reader and fan of our dear, beloved, megalomaniac who needs no introduction. It’s almost impossible for me to see anything of his face. --Robeykr

Sure. I'll take a new screenshot tomorrow. The first one was taken in between frames, making it a little blurry, and the DVD image naturally came out darker than it should have been. Either way, it was better than Palpatine.jpg at 300 pixels. --Palpatine 06:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
It is done. I opted for a much more enhanced version of the same scene as Palpatine.jpg. --Palpatine 02:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
OBTW -- The new image is G-R-E-A-T! It is absolutly perfect" Robeykr 06:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On my talk page you wrote:

You guys can have your editing war if you want, but could you do us all a favor and stop deleting the succession boxes and categories? Palpatine 01:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not deleting the succession boxes and categories! I like that section and in an earlier discussion when it was suggested for removal, I voted to keep it. Robeykr 23:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not that it really matters anymore, since I'm sure you did it on accident, but just for the record, since you gave this its own section on my Talk Page:
From the Palpatine history page:
--Palpatine 03:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ha - ha - ha. Is this suposed to ba a jab?  :-) During the past month, I made approximatly 30 edits (2/3 being reversions) to the article. There have been more than 500 edits to the article during that time period. We are both anti-fans of out dearly beloved neglomaniac who needs no introduction. I did not intend to delete the succession boxes and categories. You seem sure it was me -- I would like to know why. If I did do it -- it was by accident. Sorry..
Friends?
Robeykr 06:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You did do it and it was an accident. Like I stated, I just wanted to set the record straight. Go the history page and look at the edit right before that first one I that I posted and you'll see it was you. Somehow, you deleted a big portion of the bottom part of the article, and I'm sure it was an accident. The problem is, you reverted back to that edit once. Then you somehow managed to delete some more of the succession box and kept reverting back to that edit. Just be more careful when you're copying and pasting stuff. --Palpatine 07:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Louis III and Carloman

[edit] Anachronistic image

Please do elaborate on how Image:Louis_iii_and_carloman.jpg is, as you put it, "anachronistic" for the respective pages of Louis III of France and Carloman of France. If I'm not mistaken, anachronistic means something is chronologically incorrect, which I fail to see. Perhaps you can help? --Palpatine 07:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

--retrieved from User_talk:Hardouin

The pictures are not true representation of these two historical characters. This is only 19th century romantic idea of how they looked. The picture is anachronistic because it portrays them holding a scepter with the fleur-de-lis, although the fleur de lis did not exist yet in the days of Louis III and Carloman. Their hair style and their clothes are not 9th century either, in fact they are 13th century. The picture you provided is just born from the imagination of its author, based on how French royals looked in the 13th century, from the statues that can still be seen on 13th century Gothic cathedrals. --Hardouin 11:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
This occurred to me after I posted. There are other portraits from the same artist (not sure who exactly) scattered around royalty pages on Wikipedia, but I don't think any of them go back quite as far as Louis III and Carloman do, or rather, how far back they were supposed to go. --Palpatine 18:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gilliam animation

Thanks for providing a screenshot of Gilliam's "Elephants" animation! How did you acquire the animation, and how might I also get it? I'd really like to see it. -- BRIAN0918  01:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a screenshot from Life of Python, a BBC documentary produced for the 30th birthday of Monty Python. It didn't show the whole animation, but the show that it premiered on, "Do Not Adjust Your Set" is coming to DVD in...well, one day. Palpatine 03:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday!

Happy Birthday!

Here's a tasty Birthday cake. Best wishes to you! Hope you enjoy your day. Now, get on out there and have some fun! ;)

--Jen Moakler 03:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor

Why relink all the years that I had unlinked? My changes were in accordance with the Manual of Style. Colonies Chris 22:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, went overboard with the years. I still feel that those in the opening paragraph, dealing with his birth, and his reigns, are relevant enough to be linked. Incidentally, it looks like Bobblewik was the one who unlinked them, not you. --Palpatine 22:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
So it was. It's the sort of change I usually make when I'm working on an article, so I just assumed....
I agree the opening paragraph is a controversial area. The Mos is a bit self-contradictory about dates. The section on how to show dates of birth and death (which would normally be in the opening paragraph of course) has blue links even for isolated years, with no mention or explanation of the inconsistency with the earlier recommendation not to link years. Colonies Chris 09:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks

Your edit to September 11, 2001 attacks [1] seems to have been reverted as vandalism, which is not fair, but things have been tough today with all of the vandalism to that page. To follow up with you: the comment is about the tower on the left, and is noting the plume of smoke coming from that building. The first part of the caption is about the fireball coming from the building on the right. So, while I'm sure that your edit wasn't vandalism, I do feel that you may have mis-read the text. Thanks, and happy editing! -Harmil 17:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're still mis-reading the statement. I'll try to clarify it, since obviously there's a problem with multiple people misinterpreting which tower is being refered to. -Harmil 18:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I have clarified the caption, and cross-checked its information with the timeline of events later in the article, which is extensively sourced. Please, have a look. -Harmil 18:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Text of the caption:

The explosion resulting from the crashing of United Airlines Flight 175 into the South Tower. A plume of smoke and fire can be seen emerging from the previously struck North Tower, which is to the left in the background.

Text later on:

American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the north side of the North Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) at 8:46:30 a.m. ... United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower at 9:02:59 a.m.

The image:

Shows the foreground and right-most tower being hit, and background and rear-most tower spewing smoke.

Note that the picture shows exactly what the timeline says, and the caption talks about two things: 1) flight 175 crashing into the tower (dominates the picture, it is front-and-center); 2) there is smoke that is coming out of a building that is in the backgorund. That building appears to the left of the front-and-center building in the foreground. With me? Now, look at the timeline. That rear building, if it was the first hit, MUST be the North Tower. That means that A plume of smoke and fire can be seen emerging from the previously struck North Tower, which is to the left in the background, is correct. -Harmil 18:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahem... to quote you:
Furthermore, since you're going off of the smoke as an indication of when one was hit, look at the one on the right. It's clearly been smoking for some time.
I'm sorry, I know we all make these mistakes, and you're going to feel silly when you realize. Suffice to say that I don't hold it against you in the slightest. Now, look at the picture. Hold up the hand that is on the same side as the building with the dark smoke, the one in the background. Now, hold the thumb of that hand out at a 90 degree angle. You will note that it forms an "L". This is a standard way of identifying the left hand. I'm walking you through this because I'm mildly dyslexic, and I know how easy it is to confuse left and right. I'm just sorry that it took me so long to realize where the confusion was coming from. The building that has the dark smoke and was obviously hit first is on the left. -Harmil 19:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We're both right

We're both right, and Wikipedia was wrong. You and I were looking at different images, and for some reason Wikipedia didn't fully invalidate the cache on the image when it was updated from the color image that I was commenting on to the black-and-white image that you were commenting on. This ia a pretty odd situation, and should never happen. I'll point it out on the IRC channel in case someone technical wants to look at it. Feel free to edit the caption, and when you do, make a note in your edit summary ("shift-reload if you see an image that does not match this description"). -Harmil 19:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for keeping your cool, even though what I was saying made little sense. It made me continue to re-check my assumptions. It was only when I went to the image page and saw the old image, but a note saying that it had been deleted and replaced that I figured out what was going on. -Harmil 20:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom and 'How times have changed'

I've replaced the parts you removed with a more considered text. See explanation on Talk:Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom How times have changed. Brian.Burnell 17:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Batitsky.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Batitsky.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/l/User_talk%7EPalpatine_17c3.html"