User talk:Josiah Rowe/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 →

This archive covers discussion from June to August of 2007.

Contents

Journal of impossible things

Did Josiah notice that all the incarnation portraits in the Journal of impossible things (Human Nature/Family of Blood) are based on the very same publicity photos he used for his incarnation montage on The Doctor's Wikipedia entry?

The full journal portraits can be seen (briefly) in the Family of Blood episode guide flash media at the BBC Doctor Who website.

There are no coincidences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nospamboz (talk • contribs) 14:20, June 1, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that the Doctor images in the "Journal of Impossible Things" (as seen here and here) were derived from this image, but I can't take credit for the original: Aquanostra9 (talk · contribs) made that image. I just formatted the fair use rationale and such so that it wouldn't get deleted from Wikipedia. The credit goes to Aquanostra! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Munich 1 Poster.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Munich 1 Poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've provided a fair use rationale, even though I didn't originally upload that image; I think that I just reverted image vandalism to it a while back. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Josiah Rowe

Hi Josiah. Did you noticed that picture of Jimbo Wales on your sandbox? lol!! Anyways I was reviewing your contributions and you are editing more frequently than before. I have also noticed you do an outstanding job on those Doctor Who articals. Are you a fan of Doctor Who? I am just curious. Keep up the wonderful work my friend. Take care. Cheers mate. King Lopez Contribs 09:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I suppose you got my E-mail too. King Lopez Contribs 09:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Outpost Gallifrey.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Outpost Gallifrey.png. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:Let's try to keep it cool, OK?

I have no problem with you at this point. After this AFD we should be able to work together without issue. I wouldn't have even posted another response to that AFD if another user hadn't interrupted. I think you did the right thing by using my talk page to say "Keep it cool", rather than trying to use the "You're a jerk" defense. There's no reason we (you and I, not sure about anyone else involved) can't get along now. Jay32183 02:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Main page AotD error

Glad someone's on top of these things! Thanks for correcting the error in the main article, too, to make up for my laziness :) GDallimore (Talk) 10:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

hey!

Thanks! Hey, btw? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The AfD

Oops, forgot to respond. Yes, I looked over it, but I stand by my delete vote. Sorry, Giggy UCP 22:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr Who chronology

Hi Josiah

I just wanted to say hello and thank you for helping Vitas with his subpage and your notes on his talk page about the other wiki, and explaining about what's happening to his article. I've seen some less-than-optimal interactions with young editors on Wikipedia, and with yours it was good to see someone taking the time to make this place more friendly, so thank you.

By the way, what happened with this got me thinking about young editors, and I posted a comment at the village pump about it. It became the beginning of a new page that eventually may be a guide for young editors. I personally don't have the time or sufficient experience with kids to write it all myself, though I will try to shepherd the project for a while. If you would like to take a look at it or add your input, the page is here: Wikipedia Talk:Young Users. I wrote a lot of words in trying to come up with a framework for it, so if you don't feel like slogging through it all, just scroll down to the proposal part of the page near the bottom of the first section.

If you're not interested in that, no worries. The main reason I'm posting here is to say thanks for the way you handled the Dr Who Chronology situation. Best Wishes... --Parsifal Hello 07:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Received your reply at my talk page and thanks again for your help with Vitas. I hope he enjoys those Dr Who links you posted. --Parsifal Hello 19:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fun Home

...is now a good article. Congratulations. The Rambling Man 07:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no, not tetchy at all. It was something that I needed to have clarified so I don't make the same 'error' in other reviews. All good. Anyway, well done once again, good luck in future wiki-endeavours! The Rambling Man 17:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who story chronology

Thanks anyway. Though who knows luck might come my way I mean the page has already still been up for more than a week. I wonder if any of these people that are arguing about the page are even Doctor Who fans I mean they could be just arguing cause they have nothing else to do though anyway that life for you. I appreciate it anyway. Thanks. VitasV 2/7/2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:01:20, August 2, 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for everything

Josiah, thanks for your help on the Mortal Coil AfD, and with my question on Jimbo's talk page. Your convication and eloquence sets you apart. Thank you. :D Zidel333 03:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings (1978 film) FAR listing

The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Thanks

Hi Josiah, and I hope you had a great holiday. I just wanted to say that your contributions and good sense on the École Polytechnique massacre talkpage in the last few days were greatly appreciated. And I am hoping you will continue to keep an interest in the article, which every so often needs some input on the talkpage!
I love your userpage, BTW, and I am enjoying imagining the Dr. Who fan living in Virginia with his pets and wife (all of whom he is quite fond of... not sure what I'd think if I was your wife!!!) But then Dr. Who never was that demonstrative! --Slp1 00:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I shall certainly try and give it a look later on today! Angmering 06:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Haven't had an opportunity to take a proper look, though a cursory glance suggests you should bite the bullet and go for FAC. Think of it as a timed PR - you address all the valid concerns, and then the star comes afterwards. If you got some time on your hands (enough to handle an FAC), then nominate it. Good luck. LuciferMorgan 20:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You own

Your edit to TFA today was no huge effort, and normally I think its silly that people give out barnstars for small but visible edits, but you deserve it. Something really needed to be done about these absurdities, and all any of us have been doing was moan about it.

Please keep editing. Wikipedia is a good thing when it comes down to it, and jumping ship won't save it from itself. Atropos 07:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


Not only all of this, but the entire point (as I understand it) of the spread of free content is the spread of culture. Restricting our display of a culturally significant work of art is anathematic to that purpose. Seriously, I've seen some people use content editor pejoratively. I'm sorry, I thought I was writing an encyclopedia, not campaigning. I must want the other Wikipedia. Atropos 08:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you for taking a stand. Even if it doesn't last, its was nice to see somebody stand up and actually do something.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel a bit like Don Quixote, but I suppose tilting at windmills has its own worth... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I wanted to thank you for all your effort and reason today. I was the nominator and was glad to see your stand. The conversation worries me, the implication made by a few contributors was that articles of a type should be defacto exclued from the main page. Whatever, your posts were much appreciated. Ceoil 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, they might be giants. Atropos 00:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Glasses

Excellent! Perhaps I can flog them to a mad Oz fan. I seem to remember a pair of ruby slippers selling for stupid amount of money a few years back at some auction or other. Angmering 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha, I see! Hope that's going well for you. I've never seen or read The Wizard of Oz or any of its sequels and so forth, although I did once have to read Geoff Ryman's related novel Was at university, though. Odd book. Angmering 19:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I know the basics - Kansas, house blown away, lion, tin man, scarecrow, witch etc. I've not been kept in a cultural vaccuum! ;-) Although I wouldn't know the eponymous wizard if he stood up in my soup, I must admit. Angmering 21:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Josiah

Hi Josiah. I have a curious question. If the admin toolbox looks like the picture on the left and the block IP looks like this

Then where is the deletion and protection located at? For example is it above the screen where it says. (userpage) (discussion) (edit this page)(+) (history) (move) (watch) Something like that? Or it is on another page? Don't worry you can trust me. I have been editing for months now. I am just curious. Thank you. King Lopez Contribs 10:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Josiah. I guessed right. Take care. King Lopez Contribs 10:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Series/Season

Hi, I didn't know where to put this, so I'll just put it here, and it can be deleted after being read or whatever. Anyway, thank for giving feedback on the reverts. I would have asked about it on the discussion page, but I didn't feel that my query would get seen seeing as it's only a template page and there weren't any discussions there at the time. Also, I had the feeling that the season/series would have reached some conclusion or consensus after this length of time for wikipedia, but since there wasn't anything I could see in the discussions for any of them, I concluded that I wouldn't be messing anything up *too* badly. And yes, I see very clearly why there are both varients there, and I did get a bit confused when I saw them both being used, but hey-ho, there we go. Anwyay, just wanted to let you know that I've acknowledged your comments, and, yes, I always *try* to sign off, but I sometimes forget...maybe I will get an account.

81.104.177.44 17:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NYU in popular culture

This article was recently deleted and I am submitting it for deletion review. As I see you supported keeping Yale in popular culture - an article almost exactly the same as NYU in popular culture - please support me in restoring this page. As the creator of the page I plan on bringing it to the level of Wikipedia in culture should it be restored. Please comment on the process here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_14#NYU_in_popular_culture. Your support is appreciated. Thanks. -- Noetic Sage 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fun Home for FA

Hey, great work on expanding the article since I reviewed and passed it to GA. I'm reviewing it for FAC right now, one minor point struck me as I was looking over the references - ref [3] also requires free registration so you might like to add that to the reference description. I'll add my comments at the FAC soon. All the best. The Rambling Man 08:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Josiah; your User:Josiah Rowe/sandbox is populating the error category for ArticleHistory, which I and others monitor daily. Since it looks like you've prepared the AH for the eventual FAC closing, I just wanted to remind you not to update the AH yourself when the FAC closes; that stalls the bot and creates extra work for the bot operator and usually misses steps in the process, so it's best to wait for the bot to do all the necessary steps. See the instructions at {{FAC}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Fun Home

Hey JR,

There's no unitary way of doing this stuff really and go with what your gut says, BUT I would definitely divide Plot/story and themes into separate sections and tell the entire plot and story. Also, Best of 2006 I'd get rid of and merge with reviews or awards and call it critical acclaim and awards or something. I like what you have so far in terms of content though. The Greek myths connection and what the creator's intentions were is also solid. Maybe something on controversy surrounding this book because the author's lesbian (if she is) or particular attention from the gay/lesbian community might help. Overall, I like what you have as it's informative, but still too short (which is fine for me, but may not be for others). During the review process for featured articles, people will ask for more content probably (it's what usually happened to me). The more details you can add the better. Sorry I can't be of more help. Good luck and I look forward to what you're going to do with the article. Ciao. Tombseye 20:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fun Home

It looks like you've made significant improvements to the article. I'm almost finished Fun Home. I like it but at the same time it's kind of depressing. But it is a tragicomedy. Have you read Blankets by Craig Thompson? I loved that one. I'll read the article from beginning to end as soon as I finish Fun Home which will happen this weekend.-BillDeanCarter 10:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to see how Fun Home wraps up. I'm actually looking forward to a new GN that Thompson talked about in an interview. Using Islamic symbology rather than Christian. Sounded very interesting. And I read about the removal in the Fun Home article which I think has an identical section in the Blankets article.-BillDeanCarter 13:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the duplication. The two GNs are tied together for that news event. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BillDeanCarter (talk • contribs) 13:29, August 17, 2007 (UTC)
OKay, I've finished Fun Home. A real tragicomedy. As for the article I would include a bit about the artistic process in the lead, as well as the popular and academic attention the novel/or translation received in France. There's chunks in the body that are not mentioned in the lede, which would lead someone to think where did this come from? The lede is supposed to set you up to say I want to know more about that. So I want to know more about the attention the novel received in France, the library removal controversies, as well as the intriguing artistic process. But I'll get to a review this evening.-BillDeanCarter 00:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for writing the article. It really is quite useful. I'm glad I read Fun Home.-BillDeanCarter 09:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
When the worst criticism you get is that dashes violate the dashes guideline, you know you've done a pretty good job! Cheers and thanks again for your great work on this article. Pascal.Tesson 04:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed because I have the FAC watchlisted but not the article itself. Hmmm... Some of his points are valid but there are also a few that I believe are not and I'm not sure it would be that much work in any case. I'll cut and paste the comments to the FAC though and will reply there. Pascal.Tesson 05:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your edits to G&S articles today. If you like G&S, check out WP:G&S. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good to know an administrator with an interest in this area. I may also bother you some time with issues related to WP:MUSICALS if you don't mind? -- Ssilvers 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cite serial template

Just wanted to mention I made that change to the template. Thanks for pointing it out - I never would have thought of it, but it makes so much sense, and I think makes the template much more useful. Plus, I enjoy the excuse to muck about with the syntax! I think it's working all right, but please let me know if you spot any bugs. --Brian Olsen 03:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fun Home

I have placed a list of suggestions for improvement on the talk page for Fun Home. I hope they are helpful. (I guess you have a Cheshire cat? I suppose you hear that all of time.) Awadewit | talk 03:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to give people time to answer/address everything before I go back in guns ablazing, usually 24-48 hours. I am currently reviewing 3 other articles (all with FAR more serious problems than yours) and have one of my own up for review (I'd love your feedback BTW on Aggie Bonfire) and will get to yours in due course. If I haven't done anything and you have addressed all concerns, Raul usually defaults to, "Ok, those have been answered and the jerk didn't line them out..." — BQZip01 — talk 04:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots

One way to create screenshots is to open up your computer's DVD player and pause it at the scene that you need for Wikipedia. Put the player on fullscreen mode, press the "print screen" button on your keyboard, then open up your images program, where you can paste the screenshot into there. (Ibaranoff24 23:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

Unexploded ordnance

The Unexploded ordnance article gives me the impression that the term is more appropriate in a military context, where bombs left over from wars pose a risk to safety. I don't believe it should be in the Hyderabad bombings item on ITN, especially since "unexploded bombs" is quite self-explanatory as it is. -- tariqabjotu 18:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ozma/Leia

I believe there's a reference to the similarities between "The Wizard of Oz" and the first "Star Wars" film in "The World of Oz" by Allan Eyles (sp?) but unfortunately I've lost both my copies of that book. Arrgh. In any case, the comparison is as old as the Star Wars films, by no means limited to a single internet forum. If I'm not mistaken, Lucas himself has admitted being influenced by Baum - but unfortunately I can't source that. --woggly 08:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Scott would have that... Of course I am thoroughly educated and highly magnified. Why else would I call myself Woggly? :) --woggly 20:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gonzales

I added Gonzales to ITN after hearing his resignation announced on the CBC. I felt that was good enough. DS 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Evangelion episode reviews

Can you please bump the Neon Genesis Evangelion episode guide articles on the review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Episode_articles to getting done asap? --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 29 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michelle Paradise, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 21:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)