User talk:Hayter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 The return of Enterprise continuity 2 Enterprise Continuity 3 Numenor & Atlantis 4 John Murray, 1st Marquess of Atholl 5 AfD voting 6 Harry Potter fancruft 7 Userbox Categories 8 {{User:UBX/Trekkie}} 9 A Liberal Idea? 10 Devolved Union? 11 Fuck You 12 Renominating deleted articles 13 Userbox changes 14 BBC 24 15 Template talk:User United Kingdom 16 United Kingdom template 17 Simming Organization Importance Template 18 Star Trek Titan 19 Moslems: A brief response 20 AFD 21 Thanks 22 Image:Smstarfleetacademy.png 23 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Smstarfleetacademy.png) 24 Gran Turismo 4

ChrisMurray

My Userpage - My Talk - My Blog

Any comments, questions or general threats, put them here and I'll get back to you, provided you sign your name. I'll reply on your own talk page, but will eventually include my replies here in italics as well, for my own reference.

[edit] The return of Enterprise continuity

I have cleared out all the POV in the Enterprise continuity article and am shopping it round prominent afders for their comments beofer trying to get it back up somewhere. i have shown it to Ritchy and Crossmr but am yet to get a response. It is about one fifth of its original size. Would you be interested in having a look? Magic Pickle Could you please repost "Enterprise Alleged Continuity Problems on Wikipedia; I promise not to tamper with it!User:VirginiaBoy

[edit] Enterprise Continuity

TOPIC: Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_continuity_problems

Regarding Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems: Please don't change the properly formatted paragraphs back to the Issue, Reply, Responce soapbox format. That's why the cleanup tag is there. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_continuity_problems --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The nature of the article suggests that for clarity's sake, what you choose to call soapbox formatting works best. It's a necessary evil in order to best present the article. You'll notice that rather than the continued rebuttals present before you nominated it for deletion, (a vote which ended with a pretty safe keep), I've only included one issue and one reply for each section I've edited, keeping additional evidence (if it is warranted) in a seperate paragraph. Now I'm with you in that I'm not entirely sure this article should be here, but it is and so it should be made clearer and cleaner. The best way to do that is via the single issue/reply format that I've been inputting. A paragraph containing the arguments for and against a particular point will create nothing but confusion and will encourage the repitition of data (as the state of the article prior to this series of edits clearly shows). Your numerous reverts make it clear you don't like the format, but others do and as stated above, I believe it works best for this type of article.

I'm sorry, but I still disagree with you. This format encourages people to contribute in a soapbox style, by adding their own contribuations as a "reply" or "comment". Traditional formatting may be less clear, but this is a necessary evil to prevent the article turning back in to a soapbox style discussion. Editors should stick to the The manual of style. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC) To clarify, I'm not going to actually revert your edits. (To be honest, I'm pretty tired of keeping one eye on this article.) But I do think you should strongly consider changing it back to the format generally accepted in wikipedia. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that you don't like it, and in another time I might have agreed with you but here and now I don't. I don't want to see [1] any more than you do, which is why I've done away with numerous rebuttals, sticking to single paragraphs for each. Any sensible user which sees that will simply add their own point to the relevant paragraph. Will there be some idiots who try and turn each section into a debate? Probably but you can't write articles trying to cater for the future stupidity/partisansip of some people - if we did that would make Wikipedia non-existant.

This article is of course widely open to POV editing and original research. Who's to say that those who don't like phase pistols are a majority or minority amongst Trek fans? And if we start asking for sources for each of these points, the article will end up with a collection of links to small-time forums with heavily biased fans as regulars. The Manual of Style cannot be applied to this article with a straight cover as it would an article about the series. Wikipedians have shown they want the article, they've shown they like the yes/no format in this case, but it just needs cleaned up. That's the result I'm going for. There are articles and templates I don't like myself, but which have proved popular with others. It's the nature of a project like this. In this case, whilst I feel this is the correct direction for the article to go at the moment, I'm not opposed to removing the Issue/Reply bullet points and simply having seperate paragraphs (and may well do that in my next edit), but the seperation of points should remain and in essence the tone and functionality of the page would stay the same.

Actually, I think removing the bullet points but leaving the structure the same would address all my concerns. Perhaps I didn't have an objection to the layout, merely the way that layout was presented? Thanks for your time. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, great work. Thanks. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad you like the end(-ish) result. Thanks for the Barnstar. Much appreciated.

---

TOPIC: Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_continuity_problems

Hello. This is my first post to the talk section, so my apologies if I'm breaking any of the rules of behavior. Not my intention.

To the matter at hand. The deletion of the Logical Fallacies section that was recently added. Your comment for justifying the deletion was that the Empire didn't worry about interior design.

Fair enough, but I think you're not following the point. I have re-inserted the material, and have tried to explain in greater detail why the problem isn't just a "oh, well, they had a limited budget to do each episode" but is, as stated, a logical fallacy. A contradiction that collapses the whole device called plot.

If you're going to delete it again, could you please explain in more detail than just a somewhat snippy one-liner?

Thank you.

adering

See Talk:Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_continuity_problems for my response. - Hayter 10:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Numenor & Atlantis

TOPIC: Atlantis in fiction

"per Tolkien himself, Númenór was definitely his version of Atlantis"

I wouldn't be so bold as to say you were wrong, but I was under the impression that Tolkien was stringently opposed to people drawing parallels between his fiction and the 'real' world and as such, assumed this extended to other tales and fables. Though many commentators compare his work to European mythology, I was unaware that he himself did this. Do you perhaps have a link to an online source of information regarding this - I find the idea very interesting. - Hayter 10:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

He wasn't quite as stringent as many people think. While opposing any attempt to make a one-to-one correlation between places in Middle Earth and places in the modern world, he did both explicitly and implicitly state that the areas covered by the trilogy's action and maps was the northwest area of the Old World -- that is, Europe -- and the Shire was of course a spiritual stand-in for England, even if not necessarily identical physically.

Tolkien's Middle Earth setting as a whole was always admitted to be a fictional pre-history of the real world, as noted in the prefatory matter to The Lord of the Rings. As such, Númenór was not merely a parallel to Atlantis, but his version thereof -- or rather, our Atlantis myth was at least implicitly presented as an imperfect memory of Númenór, the "real" Atlantis in his scheme of things.

While the existence of Atlantis in the real world's prehistory is dubious to say the least, its legendary role in that prehistory is well established -- and Númenór plays exactly that same role in Tolkien's fictional version of prehistory. (The role being, of course, that of a high maritime civilization that conquered much of Middle Earth = Europe that afterwards sank beneath the sea, but from which much of later civilization derived).

If Middle Earth is admitted to be an ancient version of our own world, the conclusion that Númenór is intended to be Atlantis is inescapable. Tolkien made this plain both in its corresponding role and in his alternative names for Númenór in the appendices to The Return of the King. I know of no online source for the identification, but if memory serves I believe the issue is addressed more directly in the published volume of his letters and Christopher Tolkien's History of Middle Earth set.

--BPK.

Okay, I've done a quick web search, and now I can provide you some references.

http://greenbooks.theonering.net/quickbeam/files/081503.html

makes much the same argument I have above.

http://fin.go.wifl.at.org/tables/html/numenor.htm

is a good presentation of Tolkien's various versions of the Númenór story.

http://www.merp.com/essays/MichaelMartinez/mmartineznumenortour

cites the smoking gun; Tolkien's actual equation of Númenór with Atlantis.

--BPK, 12/14/05.

Very interesting, thanks for taking the time to look it up for me. I note that TORn calls this alignment with 'reality' unusual for Tolkien so perhaps my supposition was not completely false, but the similarities are obvious (and obviously intended) - Atalantë certainly makes a point.

I should really get my own copy of The Silmarillion and investigate C Tolkien's publications. Thanks again.

[edit] John Murray, 1st Marquess of Atholl

I recently completed a substancial re-edit of John Murray, 1st Marquess of Atholl which you recently added a cleanup tag to - It's a subject I've researched but wouldn't claim to be an expert on. I'm not entirely sure on the formatting (particularly the presence of a trivia section for such a subject - it seems... tacky), but I think the information presented is clearer, more abundant and accurate. In case you weren't watching it, thought you may consider a re-read. - Hayter 21:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice work Hayter! I've done a bit o' wikifying on it too! :-) Craigy (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD voting

Not that I'm trying to swing your vote (no, really, I'm not :) ), but I've noticed you make the point at least twice in deletion votes, that since you're new, your vote shouldn't count. Don't let that be your attitude. One of Wikipedia's foremost rules is Wikipedia: Be Bold. If your argument or position is unreasonable, then you'll likely be called up on it, but don't assume because you're new your vote doesn't count. I've only been editing for a few months, and I've created articles, moved them, nominated for deletion, uploaded images, reverted vandalism, deleted non-sensical sections. Naturally I made some mistakes but the WP community accepts that these happen, and generally moves on without another word.

Oh, and most people respond on the talk page of the user who sent them the message. Koot may not be watching your talk page so might not have seen your above response, but if you had posted it on his talk page, he would have gotten an alert box saying, "you have new messages." Some experienced members do respond on their own pages, but the majority doesn't. I tend to respond on others talk pages, then copy and paste my own responses to my page in italics after a while, so I can go back, check, and still realise what the conversation's about. :) - Hayter 13:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of encouragement and advise on my talk page, Hayter. Being bold sounds good and it's usually something I do pretty well. My being new to Wikipedia was not the most important reason to change my AfD votes; being too biased was. I created Section 47, so you bet I think it's important enough for an article ;) And if Section 47 is, so is Bravo Fleet. However, I didn't want to come across as vain or anything. Also, it didn't help that some folks from Section 47 reacted rather unfriendly. That's not what I wanted Section 47 to be, and that's not what I want to be associated with. Right now, I think the best action was to retract my votes on both articles. I'm sure that after some more time on Wikipedia, I'll feel more comfortable about my stance on such matters, and I'll feel more comfortable voting either way. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 14:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter fancruft

"Timeline of Harry Potter fan fiction" has been deleted, per WP:CSD G4 and per the AFD discussion. Thank you for noticing this. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:58, Dec. 23, 2005

[edit] Userbox Categories

Hey there. I noticed you edited the Template:User Scotland page, to bring it in line with pre-existing categories - I think this is a good idea but given that the idea of the template was to reflect nationality rather than location, I don't think "Wikipedians in Scotland" would be the best choice; similarly the "Wikipedians in the UK" would be the wrong choice for the used category itself. If there's a pre-existing category (or category format e.g. Wikipedians from X) then the template should use that but I really don't like switching nationality markers for location ones... In hindsight it may perhaps have been better to name the template "User Scottish." :P - Hayter 18:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your message. I had a feeling that may be the case - hence the "rv if you want" comment. I totally agree with your reasoning - I personally think Cat:Wiks in the UK should not have been moved from Cat:UK Wiks. Nationality templates self-contain location, but not v.v.... oh well! Deano (Talk) 18:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

---

We are now discussing the possibility of moving "Wikipedians in the UK" to "British Wikipedians" (to conform to the standards set by others such as Category:Indian Wikipedians. Presumably if this is implemented then Scottish/Welsh will become legitamate subcategories? Deano (Talk) 17:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely - sounds like a good idea. Of course I'm drawn to think of Wikipedians in the UK who are not actually British... Ideally I'd prefer both categories, though I'm ignorant as to how much work this would entail. - Hayter 17:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the number of Wikipedians in the UK who don't consider themselves British is pretty negligible... although I have no basis for that comment. I suppose we could always revert back to... But I'd say two simultaneous categories just gets messy and confusing. Deano (Talk) 18:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{User:UBX/Trekkie}}

Ok, I have reverted it back. I didnt look at the image page, noticing that it was user created. I assumed it was the (c) version that has been on Star Trek. --Romeo Bravo 21:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU for that image... finally, someone made one. -- Chris 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Liberal Idea?

I'm looking for information regarding why conservatives are traditionally and generally the ones who support the right to bear arms whereas liberals are against this. It's struck me as apparently hypocritical of both sides; the Right is interested in national defence, throws money at the military and intelligence agencies, is in favour of such actions as warrant-less wire taps, but actively fights for the individual's right to own firearms which could be used against the state, whereas liberals protect free speech to the point where it may cause secular hatred and lead to violence, are in favour of civil liberties and are all about "freedom to" but are against the freedom to own firearms. It's an issue that's crept up between a friend and I and I'm at a loss to explain it. I'd be gratetful if anyone (I assume those editing this article have researched the issue more than I) could point me towards a source that explains why this is, as it seems inherently illogical at first glance. I understand the arguments for and against gun control, but I don't understand why those different positions are championed by the people they are, rather than the other way round. - Hayter 21:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, your definition of Right and Left (or Right and Liberal as the Americans say) might be confusing in understanding the issues. You state that those on the 'Right' want to allow weapons which can be used against the state. A lot of modern Rightists do not believe in the maintenance of the 'State' at all - so this wouldn't be a problem to them. Libertariins, who could easily be considered 'Right wing' (although many Libertarians do not recognise right and left) would allow firearms, but would probably privatise the military and would seek to dismantle the 'State'. Your definition of Liberals as protecting freedom of speech to the point of allowing hatred (presumably racism) is not always reflected by leftists - most UK leftists fully support anti-race hate laws. Look at our proposed anti-religious hate laws - I think these sorts of laws are more likely to come from the left. As another example, Anarchists would allow firearms, but could not be considered 'Right wing'. So the definitions of Right and Left avoid the complexity of views on this. As both you and me are from the UK, Hayter, we have to recognise that for the most part, moderate right and moderate left in our country agree on the ban on personal ownership of firearms. I recognise that in the US it is a different story. But that's their problem! Thanks Magic Pickle 19:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question - here is some food for thought...

• Some of the earliest gun control laws were passed in the south to insure that newly freed slaves couln't arm themselves. Since the south was solidly democratic, these laws (along with other Jim Crow statutes) were supported by the democratic party.
• The left saw several of its heros taken by firearms in the 1960's - John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr. - this led to a strong emotional opposition to firearms.
• Ideology of the right is more grounded in a sense of "personal responsibility". Without a belief in personal responsibility, it is harder to logically support privately held firearms. The idiology of the left is more grounded in "social responsibility", where it is easier to dictate what is and isn't allowed for the public good.

Your observation is correct; there is no "logical" reason for the left in America to be opposed to firearms. The reasons behind it are historical, political, and emotional - not based in a well-reasoned ideology. This observation about lack of coherent ideology could probably be equally applied to both major American parties.- O^O

I was recently reading through my talk page and realised I had forgotten to thank you for the comments you offered here. My apologies for the late response, but I do appreciate your insights, even if I might not agree with all your points. :) - Hayter 11:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Devolved Union?

Hey there. Was just looking at your userpage and noticed that you have userboxes - I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave Wikipedia, as you are creating division and strife within the community, which I don't think should really exist and doesn't really care about Wikipe...

Sorry - I've been channelling Kelly Martin all day now. I was actually looking at your userboxes and wondering how it was that you could support devolution within the UK, and yet still be in favour of the union. It was only just now whilst writing this, that I pieced together the green union jack and the phrase, "unionist" and realised that those in Ireland use that word in a different manner to me. So... there you go.

Seriously though, the two do seem to contradict each other, even if you're talking about the Northern Ireland situation as opposed to the mainland. - Hayter 23:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, I am a Unionist and believe that Northern Ireland is better off within the United Kingdom, but I also believe that we, well all the regions of the UK, should be able to make some decisions (health, transport, education etc) for ourselves. I think the confusion is the word "Devolution" is not the devolution of the Union, but devolution of some law making ability to the regions.

Currently this is happening in Scotland and Wales, and to a lesser extent Grater London, but here all the decisions about Health, Education, and more importantly for me University Top-up fees, are made by Labour MPs who have probably never even been to Northern Ireland. Labour also do not canvas in Northern Ireland, so none of them have even been elected by people in Northern Ireland.

If we had our own assembly, within the UK (that's the important part of the userbox) then like Scotland we would have no top-up fees, none of the main Northern Ireland parties supported them (DUP, Sinn Fein, UUP, SDLP). It’s a bit like in the United States or France where each state/region has its own legislature but there is also a central Government who looks after Foreign Policy, Taxes etc.

I doubt that made much sense but there it is. You will find that most people in Northern Ireland support some level of autonomy for the region, but some think its part of a long-term re-unification of Ireland, others hope it’s just part of devolution and will go no further. Thanks for stopping by. - Keith Greer 23:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just realised you are Scottish, I wrote that as if I was talking someone from England, or outside the UK. - Keith Greer 23:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck You

Fuck you asshole. Allahu Akbar. -24.94.122.112 (unsigned)

God's greatness aside, your conduct will likely result in a ban from wikipedia if it continues. You have violated WP:CIVIL on more than one occassion and this is an act that is frowned upon by the community - not me personally. Frankly I don't know why you were offended by me signing your comment before - I assumed the mistaken signature was simply a result of unfamiliarity with the wikipedia set-up on your part - certainly nothing malicious. Regarding Meryl Silverburgh, I believe you're correct in asserting that she is eighteen, but use of the word 'asshole' won't help you convince people. Neither will Allah. - Hayter 18:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renominating deleted articles

To renominate a deleted article (like our favorite Expansion Fleet), please use {{afdx}} instead of {{afd}}. (I have just done so and renominated Expansion Fleet (you may share your opinion here), as I was getting tired of putting a {{db-repost}} tag on it again and again. Thank you, and happy editing! Kusma (討論) 14:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that. I'll bear it in mind for future EF deletions. ;) - Hayter 11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox changes

You have changed the userbox template for Template:User England. I am from England, but I now live in the USA; therefore, I can no longer use the userbox in its current form. The template was created to describe our country of origin, and you changed it to describe something completely different. Furthermore, there has been no discussion about this in the appropriate place, so I am reverting it. -- Scjessey 18:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have the same problem. The lack of discussion or notice is NOT appreciated! Remember when you change a template, you affect all the linked pages, so it should only be done with great care. I live in Canada but originate from the U.K. The phrase "comes from" does not mean "lives in"! I'm just removing the userbox from my page until the purpose of the box is settled. Slowmover 21:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you check the edit history? If you would care to, you'll see my edit summary includes a link to Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Location/United Kingdom where this issue is being discussed and everyone who has responded has agreed with the reformatting. I regret that there is no easy way to contact everyone using these templates directly, but as noted there was the original link and every template I have changed now has a notice and link to the same discussion on their talkpages. The distinction between "comes from" and "lives in" that you note is precisely what has spurred this on, as there was (and to an extent still is) a degree of confusion and clear error relating the text of user boxes and the assigned categories i.e. One userbox read, "This user comes from X" but included the category, "Wikipedians in X."

I completely understand your position, but I would ask that you attempt to understand mine and in the practice, I believe you'll find we think alike on this. The suggestion that I have not thought this through or been careful in my edits is not appreciated itself. - Hayter 16:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I apologize for being so abrupt and jumping to conclusions. Slowmover 17:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BBC 24

I like the current version of the BBC 24 userbox. Good parody. I also like what you've done with your (first) userpage. - Hayter 21:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, It's my new policy on userboxes, I created, which were turned into intrest templates by admins. - TheKeith 15:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:User United Kingdom

Regarding the situation here, if I were to Request a Comment, how would I do so? I have looked at the categories on WP:RFC and none of them seem to fit a userbox dispute very well.

The reason I ask is because I have little doubt that I am in the right here, and I believe it to be a safe assumption that the other side feels the same way about themselves and there is no real compromise to be reached here - it should be one or the other. If more people comment in good faith (by good faith I mean something above "all userboxes are stupid") and there is a clear consensus against my point, I have no problem leaving the template as is however I am reluctant to do so because of what I see as two users (one of which is now using a more correct template anyway) being stubborn and hypocritical reverting the edit simply because it has been revealed that they were using the template under a misconception.

The proposal I put forth at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Location/United Kingdom with five comments (4:1 in favour) is clearly not a scientificly accurate indicator of the wishes of everyone who uses these templates and I have not purported it to be so, but at present it is the best we have and as such I feel it should hold more weight than the assumptions put forth by SteveRwanda. I see it as little different from a Tfd discussion - not everyone who uses it will coment or vote, but the decision will be upheld regardless.

I don't mean to make my case for change to you personally, but your "straw poll" comment led me to believe that's how you viewed the proposal and I would like to make you aware of how I see it. - Hayter 15:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. My straw poll comment was because a) Straw polls are bad and don't always promote discussion, b) They can be seen as final but yet it may be more appropriate to reconsider in the future, c) It is easy for them not to reflect overall community views. I understand how both parties are slightly to blame, and also how they have both tried to overcome the situation. Although I do not want to become involved in the situation (since I have used admin tools on the page in the conflict), but I hope that it is possible for a conclusion to be reached. Another straw poll could be highly appropriate, as long as people explain their choise, and others explain why they feel they are misguided. Personally I think all parties are acting in good faith, especially due to lack of reverts after unprotection. Unfortunatly it does seem that userboxes don't fit into RfC atall (however bringing it there could lead to the "all userboxes are stupid" views). You may wishto host a local request for comment over content within the talk page, and possibly add a notice into the userbox to highlight this. I hope this is of some use :) Ian13/talk 18:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom template

Hi Hayter, this might be a stupid question (and if it is, forgive me, I'm quite new), but why can't we have two userboxes, one saying "lives in" and one saying "come from", each linking to a different category? ConDem^Talk 02:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

We can, and we do. There was already {{User British}} before but some people didn't like that because they weren't overly proud of where they came from. So when this discussion began, I created {{User British2}}, which shares the same style as the one under vote, but is designed to indicate nationality rather than location, as I believe this one is. The point of contention is whether {{User United Kingdom}} is a location or nationality indicator. I believe the former, but if it is the latter, then {{User British2}} is redundant and should be deleted.

Don't worry about asking such questions - most established users on WP remember being new themselves. - Hayter 10:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simming Organization Importance Template

I'm considering removing the {{importance}} template from the Simming Organization article, but I wanted your input on it first, since you added the template in the first place. I'll be watching your talk page for a while, and I'm watching the Talk:Simming Organization page to keep an eye out for anything you have to say on it. :) Thanks for bringing that issue up, and for your contributions to the article. You've helped a lot! • WarpFlyght (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek Titan

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for your work on Star Trek: Titan, and the good commuinication about editing issues. I went back to the article tonight and saw loads of new stuff and loved it. Keep up the good work, Chuck 08:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think about 40% of my edits are to talk pages. I think they're woefully underused and nothing bugs me more than people making conflicting edits and using (if anything) only the summaries to communicate with each other. The Titan article's not so bad, but after having edited a number of more controversial pages on this and other wikis, I like to take full advantage of the talk pages because no one person has all the answers and/or best ideas. - Hayter 05:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moslems: A brief response

I noticed your comments regarding spelling of this word on someone else's talk page. As I understand it, Moslem either phonetically or when translated sound similar to 'Oppressor' in Arabic, and as a result, it is now considered polite to use Muslim in general conversation. I cannot claim to have read extensively on this subject, but it is something I wondered about a few years ago as well and if I recall arite, this is what my brief research threw up. - Hayter 18:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have heard the same thing that you recently posted on my talk page. I tried to avoid getting that response when I wrote that neither form is spelled phonetically and either way most Anglophones pronounce it techincally incorrectly. But I don't care how Anglophones pronounce it. There is a proper Arabic pronounciation and a proper English one (which is different). The Spanish say musulmán, which is hardly like any Arabic word I know of and nobody complains. I think the English ought to spell and pronounce it however they please. If someone takes offence, that is his or her problem. In English it's innocent enough, it simple means "adherent of Islam" however you spell or pronounce it. Anyways, no offence is here intended or in my spelling of "Moslem," I just think that there's an issue when people try to dictate for political or religious reasons how to spell a word when spelling has been already established. Srnec 22:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

Thanks for the suggestion. This is the first time I've nominated an article previously nominated and what a headache. I didn't read the fine print and it took me two or three minutes to get everything linked properly so that it would show up right. --Crossmr 19:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my userpage, but it wasn't a vandal, just me logged out. It's the thought that counts, anyway. Deleuze 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Smstarfleetacademy.png

I've changed the tag on this image from the {{pd-self}} to {{logo}}. The reason is the image is a derivative work of Image:Sf academy.jpg. I took these two images, scaling your image up to the same size as the other, and found the shape, dimensions, placement and general color scheme to be virtually identical. As such, Paramount retains copyright on the image you uploaded. If you have questions about this, please feel free to ask. Thanks, --Durin 20:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Smstarfleetacademy.png)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Smstarfleetacademy.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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. --Durin 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gran Turismo 4

Would you still have a few minutes to come back to help out with Criticisms in Gran Turismo 4?--SportWagon 22:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem got solved.--SportWagon 23:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)