User talk:Throw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your articles about Big Love episodes

In the state they are in now they probably qualify for the deletion criteria in Wikipedia so I'd like to know if you intend to fill the articles with actual information and encourage you to do so as soon as possible. If they are still all in this state a week from now I will nominate them for deletion.

It concerns the following articles: Pilot (Big Love episode), Viagra Blue (Big Love episode), Home Invasion (Big Love episode), Eclipse (Big Love episode), Affair (Big Love episode), Roberta's Funeral (Big Love episode), Eviction (Big Love episode), Easter (Big Love episode), A Barbecue for Betty (Big Love episode), The Baptism (Big Love episode), Where There's a Will (Big Love episode), The Ceremony (Big Love episode). - Dammit 17:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• I do intend to write synopses for the episodes, though I feel you're jumping the gun a little. There's several television series whose individual episode articles are in a similar state, waiting to be filled out by fans. No need to nominate the Big Love episodes merely because you ran into them. If you're a fan of the show, feel free to contribute. Throw 21:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh, but they have no text (other than the sidebar on the right side) and appeared to be abandoned. I'm glad to hear you intend to write synopses for them though, good luck with that. Unfortunately I won't be able to help you though, I don't even know the show. - Dammit 21:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PSP game covers

Hi, I see you've been uploading many PSP game covers. The template {{gamecover}} accepts various platforms as a parameter, so could you use

{{|gamecover|PlayStation Portable}}

for PSP covers and

{{|gamecover|Nintendo 64}}

for N64 covers and so on. Thankyou. Timkovski 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Where it says "tl" is that where I insert the title of the video game? Throw 19:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll update the covers. Throw 19:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, that was a typo, I just updated it. Just put the name of the system after the word gamecover. You can see the platforms the template accepts here Category:Video game covers, thanks for that. Timkovski 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I'm wondering if you can help me once again. I want to setup the PSP covers I've replaced for speedy delation so they won't eat up space on Wikipedia. Do you know how I can do that? Throw 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, make sure the image isn't being used on any page, then just add the template {{db|reason}}, replacing the word reason with your reason for deleteing the image, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion might help. Timkovski 20:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference link

Thanks for fixing the reference link on the Tyrannosaurus page. Now I have to go back and fix all the others I did wrong on other pages. :-) Mdotley 16:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HarryPotter-HogwartsSeal.JPG listed for deletion

Do you get your chuckles by following me around seeing how you can annoy me? Get a new hobby. Throw 03:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it so hard to actually provide a source and a correct, specific copyright tag? I mean, honestly. Copyright problems = zero with a good source and appropriate tag. I no longer even try to use nsd/nld because you just remove it and crow, "It has a source. Call off your henchbots." I've withdrawn the nomination since you provided the source. Hbdragon88 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You do follow me around. Though the thought of having a Wikipedia stalker makes my ol' geeky heart go thumpthump you really need to get a new hobby. You'll see from my contributions – and I'm sure you have – that I'm here to help, not fuck things up. If you had an issue with the image you should have contacted me directly. These sort of things can be taken care of one-on-one, and quickly, as you saw.

On second thought keep an eye on my coming edits. I'm going to write episode synopses and I could use a proof reader. Throw 04:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I tagged three Reggie-related images and all three times you responded with the same "henchbot" reaction (plus one eariler time from OrphanBot). I even replied to the first one, saying that the promo one of Reggie did not have a CC deed on the Flickr page. I have a vested interest in tidying up Reggie's article, and I do crawl around the Harry Potter related articles; I just don't edit them. Sure, if you'll point me to the synposes themseleves I could proofread them.

Now that the door is open...how about Image:PegEntwistlePortrait.jpg? It can't be PD-US; in 1923, Entwistle would have only been 15 years old, and she definitely looks like an adult here. Rather reluctant to touch it as it does illustrate the article well. Hbdragon88 06:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a vested interest in Reggie's article why didn't you contribute? That article was a complete mess and appeared abandoned before I began to reformat and add information to it.

As for Entwistle's photograph, it's obviously a promotional photograph she probably used to apply for roles, much like head shots. I'll some source later, or you can. Do you actually ever contribute to Wikipedia? Throw 07:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Do I ever contribute...have you seen my userpage? I contribute a lot in video ames, Pokemon, Digimon, and other areas. Yes, I haven't contriubted directly to it, but I did reformat the Reggie (disambiguation) page, which encompassed Fils-Aime. I will fight in the case of free vs. copyright though, as was the case for Miyamoto, Fils-Aime, and Orson Scott Card.

Now, if you're really bothered by that free image...you could ask Nintendo themselves to release the rights to that publicity one. See Example reqeusts for permission. Hbdragon88 07:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TMNT 2003 AfD tags

Sorry about that - I thought the closing admin had taken care of it. They should all be gone now. If you find any more, please do me a favor and just delete them yourself - I'm attempting to take a wikibreak at the moment because of the Wisconsin midterm elections. I do feel a bit frustrated with the whole experience - I think it should be easier to nominate whole bundles of articles for deletion and do whatever cleanup is necessary afterwards, and I don't believe that the Pokémon test should be a valid argument at WP:AFD. I don't see the utility of separate articles for episodes when a list with the plot summaries (with a particularly notable or controversial episode getting its own article) would suffice. And, for the record, I'm not picking on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) - the same standard should apply to The Simpsons or any other TV show. It just happened that I ran across one TMNT 2003 episode that had been prodded and contested, so, as prod policy dictates, I took it to AfD. I'm working on an essay on the topic and would appreciate any thoughts you would be willing to contribute. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 05:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Jacobson

Hi Throw! I know you have done a lot of work on the Heavens to Betsy page, so I thought you might be interested to know that the article on Sarah Jacobson( whose film "I Was a Teenage Serial Killer" featured music by Heavens to Betsy) has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to vote to keep the article on this important female director, please go to this page [1] and add your comments. thanks -Intheshadows 11:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Intheshadow. Thanks for letting me know about the article for deletion. I've opposed it and it's currently winning by one vote. Hopefully it'll stay that way. Thanks again. Take care. - Throw 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Throw. Thanks so much for voting and adding your comment. Let's hope the Sarah Jacobson article stays!-Intheshadows 12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doris Stokes

Okay, firstly "self-proclaimed" is not accurate because we have a sourced statement in the article that she was recognised as a medium by the British certifying body that deals with such things. "theatrics" is commonly held to be a negative word - I think "public performances", which I changed it to, is both accurate and neutral.

I agree that "gained fame yadda yadda" isn't the best it could be - would something like "was widely known for" be better in your opinion?

Note that none of this has anything to do with whether she spoke to the dead or not, but if someone claims to be a medium, then they are one regardless of exactly what that means (misguided, fraudulent, etc). Mediums most certainly exist (they keep cropping up in the media for one thing), but a discussion of exactly what that means is better placed at [[Medium {spiritualism}]] or spiritualism or some other place - you'll note that particular claims regarding Stokes are there in the article where they should be. There are many articles regarding supposed mediums and they can't all have the same stuff in them. Vashti 03:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you that if someone claims to be a medium then they are a medium. I can easily claim to be Emperor of the United States but that doesn't make it so.

I would also have to disagree with your claim that mediums exist as no person or even the field itself has ever been scientifically proven to be such. Mediums do not keep cropping up in the media, people who claim to be mediums keep cropping up in the media.

I do not know what British certifying body you speak of but obviously since the field itself is unproven and this certifying body doesn't have the weight to actually make waves throughout the world and change every rule of science as we know it, it doesn't hold any water. Describing Stokes as a self-proclaimed medium is the only honest and NPOV way to address her in her article. - Throw 09:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary describes a medium as "6b. Spiritualism. A person believed to be in contact with the spirits of the dead and to communicate between the living and the dead. Hence: a clairvoyant, a person under hypnotic control." Note that "believed to be". The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography's entry on Stokes, cited throughout, opens "Stokes [née Sutton], Doris May Fisher (1920–1987), medium, was born on 6 January 1920 at 9 Wong Row, Grantham, Lincolnshire". The Encyclopaedia Britannica's entry on mediums states "in occultism, a person reputedly able to make contact with the world of spirits, especially while in a state of trance."; note "reputedly". Perhaps it is your understanding of the word which is mistaken.

The certifying body in question is the Spiritualists' National Union, as stated in the second paragraph of the article you are criticising, by the way. She was also described as a medium throughout her career not only by her fans but by the media, and if you insist I will present you with adequate references to that effect.

As to the fact that mediumism isn't, in fact, real, I can only say that Britney Spears apparently won an American Music Award for "Favourite Pop/Rock New Artist" despite not being my favourite new artist that year or, indeed, able to sing at all; I can only conclude that many things bear no resemblance at all to reality. Vashti 01:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, however I'll have to point out that both your definitions refer to people doing their act under hypnotism/trance. Very few self-proclaimed mediums ever appear in this way. The only one I know of is Sylvia Browne when she promoted that her 'spirit guide' Francine could inhabit her body and tell people about themselves. She stopped doing that act in the late 1990s. But this is all semantics, isn't it? In the end you believe people really have the ability to speak to the dead. I say I want proof, and unfortunately the Spiritualists' National Union isn't the unbias, objective organization that changes the world of science as we know it.

Your analogy of Britney Spears doesn't hold any water in that your not liking her music doesn't change the fact that she won an American Music Award. The AMA, like the SNU, are subjective organizations who have their opinions. For something to be fact – like mediums being real – it needs to be tested and succeed time and time again under controlled conditions. No such medium has ever been declared a scientifically proven medium. All we have is people who claim to be and have more in common to cold readers than people in tune to another existance. It makes more sense to follow Occam's razor than to believe the improbable without so much as shred of proof. - Throw 01:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your dismissal of references from respected reference works simply because they do not agree with you is noted. And my analogy is fine. Britney Spears won an award despite her lack of talent - this is objective fact. Stokes was recognised as a medium by people who make it their business to recognise people as mediums regardless of her lack of actually speaking to the dead - this is objective fact also, and means that she *cannot be described as self-proclaimed*.

One last thing. I don't know where you get the idea that I believe spiritualists can speak to the dead, or that what you or I believe is the point of this discussion. I'll thank you not to accuse me of bias while repeatedly demonstrating your own. Your point of view is not necessarily neutral.

If you want to take this further, I suggest an RFC. Vashti 06:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was such a great idea I went and did it. I've also pasted this discussion to the talk page, where it should have been all along, really - please continue it there. Thanks. Vashti 06:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:CurbYourEnthusiasmTitleScreen.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:CurbYourEnthusiasmTitleScreen.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:RockyBalboaBW.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:RockyBalboaBW.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sylvia Browne may be wrong again

I recently read they found more 9/11 debris and remains in the last couple of weeks. The woman who asked her if they'd ever find her lost firefighter Sylvia said was under water and wouldn't be found, could join the list of people given wrong info by her. Do you think she is a fraud (knows she isn't psychic) or just a deluded fool? Anynobody 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly encouraging news, Anynobody. Thanks for the notice. Do you have a source for that so it can be added to the article?

My opinion of Browne is that she's a cold reading fraud with no conscience. That's the only way I think she should lie to so many people for so long. The progression of her act is actually pretty easy to track. In the early 1990s she would look up as if taking dictation from a ghost and utter "Uhhh...yeah...okay" as if she was listening to someone talk. She doesn't do that anymore. She also used to pretend to have her 'spirit guide' Francine enter her body and she'd act as if she was the 'spirit guide.' She stopped doing that in the late 1990s. I guess her range was limited. ;) - Throw 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it in the article just yet but here is one example: WNYC. I agree that she is a fraud, her predictions are always so "safe". 9 times out of 10 if a kid gets kidnapped and is missing for years, they are dead just like she told the Hornbecks. Same goes for her prediction about not finding any remains of the fireman, at the time I would have made the same prediction she did. What are the odds of finding his dna in the WTC mess? The odds are still pretty slim, so she is probably safe, but then again maybe she isn't. Since I think she is a fraud, I think she must be stressing about it. She just tried to have stopsylviabrowne.com shut down too, which tells me shes afraid other predictions will turn out be false and be documented online. Anynobody 02:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have violated the three revert rule, If you revert again, you will be reported and blocked. User:Michaelsanders obviously has an issue with your edits. Do the constructive thing and engage him rather than reverting. John Reaves (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I was expecting this from you. I suppose you've also taken to sending Michaelsanders his own little warning of engaging me rather than reverting. If not it'll only suit to crystalize you as a brute with a chip on his/her shoulder. - Throw 04:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see by Michaelsanders' talk page than you and he have a repetoir going. That certainly explains things. - Throw 04:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No I haven't, I don't want to deal with him. You're the one without the decency to explain your edits the first three times. Rather than being a disruptive force, you should be constructive. What do you mean "his/her"? Do you know a lot of girls named John?John Reaves (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just you. And I did explain my rationale in my last edit. - Throw 04:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, real mature. Perhaps you'd be interested in Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy since this directly affects you; and if you don't stop it I might have to e-mail your parents. John Reaves (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be calling anyone children. I've seen your talk page and edit history. - Throw 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Riiiight. Well you should probably be off to bed. John Reaves (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You've fallen a long way from righteous Wikipedia policy upholder to sarcastic sid. How much further can one fall, I wonder. - Throw 04:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voldemort

The Ministry doesn't hold a consistent anti-Dark Wizard policy - on the contrary, it is frequently allied with Dark Wizards (Lucius Malfoy, grandfather Black). On the other hand, it is consistently anti Voldemort and anti criminals. Michaelsanders 09:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your rationale. The Ministry may lack integrity, but to them Lucius Malfoy is a prosperous and privileged man who rubs elbows with the elite and wets the palms of those high in government. They know nothing of Malfoy's alliance to Voldemort. Same goes for Black (who was a bigot and supported Voldemort before he began killing innocent people then quickly did an about face just like Regulus Black did. Fortunately for him he didn't meet Regulus's fate). The Ministry, as far as they're aware, do not deal with Dark witches and wizards. I'd appreciate a spirited resolution. I'd be happy to see it your way if only you can convince me. - Throw 11:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, then. Enemies. No1 - Voldemort. Obviously. Since he has been Voldemort, he has always been the top enemy - note how quickly they went into emergency mode once he came back. He is classed as far more than a common criminal, he is 'the big one' (apply whatever real-world terrorist(s) you are most familiar with).

No2 - criminals. Also obvious - the Ministry makes and enforces the laws, so anyone who breaks the laws opposes the Ministry. QED. In practice, the Ministry applies a more unscrupulous and ethically questionable policy of using criminals to catch criminals, but the end goal is to get the most dangerous criminals off the streets. Thus, Karkaroff was let off because he helped them get evidence on some criminals, and - more importantly - reel in Rookwood, the supremely dangerous Ministry leak. Willy Widdershins was let off his exploding toilet charges (his exploding muggle toilets were unpleasant, but not dangerous - provided you disinfected yourself thoroughly :) - and were aimed at Muggles, which wizards in general seem to regard as a mitigating factor) in order to spy on Harry and the gang - whom the Ministry (supposedly) thought were a dangerous subversive group infiltrating the school and indoctrinating the kids (again, apply real-world knowledge).

No3 - dark wizards. I'm not entirely sure whether there is much evidence of the Ministry going after Dark Wizards because they are Dark Wizards - rather, they go after Death Eaters, because the Death Eaters are dangerous terrorists, and thus criminals. And they don't have qualms about rubbing shoulders with Dark Wizards - the Blacks and the Malfoys have been set up as having a horrendous reputation amongst 'The Good Guys' - indeed, we've been told that the Malfoys are 'no good' or 'nothing but trouble' from the beginning, and we know that Lucius Malfoy was able to consort with Dark Wizards openly without problems (he had no issues about going into Knockturn Alley, which is based on the sale and practice of Dark Magic - his issue was with his ownership of illegal objects). Yet, the Ministry has no issues with consorting with them, or even giving them Orders of Merlin. Furthermore, one factor for Dark Wizardry seems to be the practice of the Unforgivable Curses (it earns you life in Azkaban after all). Yet, eep, the Ministry officially sanctioned their use by aurors towards the end of Voldemort's first rise.

The problem is, you seem to be conflating 'Dark Wizards' and 'Death Eaters'. Which isn't necessarily accurate. All Death Eaters are Dark Wizards. Not all Dark Wizards are Death Eaters. The Ministry, as far as it is aware, does not deal with Death Eaters, i.e. supporters of Voldemort. That does not mean they do not deal with Dark Wizards, who, after all, predate the Death Eaters, and Voldemort himself. In truth, we do not know to what extent the Ministry opposes non-criminal Dark Wizards (and Dark Wizardry in itself does not seem to be a crime, or the Malfoys and the Blacks would have been taken out of society long ago). It is possible it does, but if so, it will be below the far more important factors of Lord Voldemort, and criminals (which, if Dark Wizardry is criminal, would be under there anyway, so no problem). Certainly, we have seen nothing to suggest that it holds Dark Wizards as greater enemies than thieves, trespassers in the Ministry, subversives, etc. Hope that helped. Michaelsanders 13:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories soundtrack

You removed the Unreferenced tag from Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories soundtrack. Why? The article is still unreferenced. Mstuomel 16:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the entire article, it's accurate. How can an article that depends on a video game for references be referenced? The only way is to play the game thoroughly. - Throw 22:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There are references, you could use the game manual that came with the game, or the official website or other sites or official game guides. Wikipedia is not for original research or unverifiable claims - if you use a reference, be it a computer game or something else, it should be mentioned. (And I understand your problem, many other kinds of articles, for example Marvel characters, have problems of the same kind...) Mstuomel 17:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Working Man's barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Presented to Throw for creating and organizing the Criticism of Sylvia Browne subpage for the Sylvia Browne article in an organized and logical manner. Anynobody 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for the kind award, Anynobody. It was thoroughly unexpected. :) - Throw 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You sure earned it :) Anynobody 22:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)