User talk:NP Chilla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --JYolkowski // talk 4 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Eighth Doctor Adventure plot synopses

Hi, it's ok to make articles about these books, but please don't copy the plots from www.drwhoguide.com as it is a copyright violation. --TimPope 20:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Nick. I just noticed that your summary at The Ancestor Cell appears to be taken from drwhoguide.com. Did you get permission from Dominique Boies and Cameron Dixon to republish their content on Wikipedia? If not, I'm afraid it's a copyright problem and the page may have to be deleted and re-created. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The End of the World (Doctor Who)

The source for info on guests such as the University ones and the Rex Vok Jax bit comes from where? It's neither in the program nor in Monsters and Villains.--213.18.248.23 07:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is, and yes it is! Please check the section in the book marked "Platform One" and/or the Shooting Scripts. (I know it's been a year and a half, but a loose end's a loose end!!) ;) - NP Chilla 22:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another copyright violation on Ancestor Cell

Don't do this again. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If only I'd found WP:BITE and showed it to him, he might have put it more succintly or in nicer words. As it is, he broke my little Asperger's heart. Sigh...
Nah, not really!!! - NP Chilla 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright stuff

Hi Nick! I know that there are some issues with copying stuff from websites, but here's some advice: read Wikipedia:Copyrights, and when you see something interesting on an external website that should go in an article, just take the information, not the exact words. It's easier than it sounds, trust me :). If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me. Thanks.--Sean|Black 22:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Name origin"

Please don't add in the "Name origin" header to Pokemon articles. Please see WP:PAC/S. --Celestianpower háblame 21:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buffy eps

Just wanted to say that's good work what you're doing with the Buffy episodes. Abaraibar 08:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linking dates

Hey, Nick. I noticed that you've been linking a lot of years in the Doctor Who articles. Although you see it all over the place in Wikipedia, I gather from this page that it's generally useful to link dates only when you have a month and date (so people can use date preferences). That's why I'm delinking the dates you've just linked — it's not a vendetta! :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hi Nick. Would you consider adding edit summaries to your edits please? It would to make a quick reference to the changes made in page histories and watchlists. Thanks. --Whouk (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It just involves placing a short summary of your edit in the "Edit summary" box beneath the main edit box. This description then appears in the page history and in users' watchlists. If you look at the history of this discussion page, you'll see "short summary of edit" next to the entry for my edit adding this message. That the edit summary. See Wikipedia:Edit summary for more detailed information. --Whouk (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject: Doctor Who and the "leave-a-message, continue-a-conversation" things

Hey, Nick. I'm happy to try to explain any of Wikipedia's mysteries as far as I understand them, but I'm not entirely sure what specifically you're asking about. Are you asking how the WikiProject and its talk page is supposed to work? Well, I'm no more of an authority than the next guy, but my understanding is that it's all about building consensus and coordinating major changes or developments in the subject (in this case, Doctor Who articles). The project talk page is, I think, supposed to be for discussion of major changes (like the recategorization of episode pages that we did earlier this week, and that I'm going to expand into audios and novels if I ever get around to it), or for raising Wikipedia-related subjects that project members would be interested in or that might require assistance or input from other members. For example, the ever-vexing question of what the page about the 1996 TV movie should be called has been raised again at its talk page; since there are a jillion links to it, I think I'll put a post on the project talk page about it shortly, so other editors can discuss it before anybody makes a change. Similarly, if someone wanted to change something on all the episode pages, it would probably be a good idea to mention it on the project talk page to make sure there are no objections first.

Conversations on the project talk page should be just like conversations on any other Wikipedia talk page. If it concerns the project in general, we'll talk about it there; if it only concerns one page or one editor, it'll go on the talk page associated with that article or user. Don't worry if nobody replies to a post — it might mean that nobody cares strongly one way or the other about a subject, or that nobody's really figured out what to do about it. (In the case of your comment about the Vampire Science stub, it's almost certainly the latter. Personally, I'd like to have articles about the important Doctor Who novels, including VampSci, but I'd have to re-read the book before I felt qualified to expand the stub much beyond its current state. I'm guessing other editors are in the same situation.)

I hope this is some help to you, but if you've got another question (or if I've got the wrong end of the stick on this one) please don't hesitate to ask. And thanks for all your contributions to Doctor Who articles and Wikipedia in general! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Name Origin" again

Please don't add in a "Name Origin" header to Pokemon articles. Please see the official style guide when making changes to Pokemon articles. --Celestianpower háblame 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, sections should be at least two paragraphs long. I've editted the style guide and removed the sebntence about separate headers, it's very confusing. --Celestianpower háblame 16:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russell T. Davies

Look- a "T."! : http://www.drwhoguide.com/who_na55.htm  ;-) --TimPope 21:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imposter

Hi, Nick. You're welcome. It looks like the IP responsible (User:194.154.22.36) did some other vandalising at the same time and as a result has been temporarily banned from Wikipedia. --Whouk (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Buffy

[edit] Welcome

Hey there, welcome to to the 'WikProBuff'. The Project has been going well but has a long way to go. You can see the progress of the episode guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes. Lataness -- Paxomen 14:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Heya, don't kill yourself over synopses at moment because we have permission to use Buffy/Angel synopses from Angelic Slayer as long as we use her wikipedia account when doing so, User:AnGeL X (I can email you the user name and password if you want, my email is paxomen@yahoo.co.uk):
Her Buffy synopses are here:

]

I have already used the Angel synopses, and made both a summary and an extended synopsis for Angel series 1-4. And shall now turn to Buffy.

--Paxomen 18:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by "quoting her address". Do you mean that we can use the synopses in their entirity, so long as we cite Angelic Slayer as a source at the bottom of the article? NP Chilla 18:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well as long as we put some references to the Angelic slayer site, and make it clear at various places (e.g. discussion pages for key articles such as 'List of Buffy episodes..'). Also only using the account, User:AnGeL X.
I have now used those synopses to fill in Angel Season 1-4, and Buffy Seasons 1-3. I can complete Buffy Seasons 4-7 tomorrow, so don't worry too much about working on any synopses in Buffy Seasons 4-7 (though go ahead in refining any other Buffyverse Seasons).

[edit] Checklist

Hiya, just letting some people who regularly work on Buffyverse articles know know there is now a checklist for non-episode articles in place to highlight articles needing work on, and articles coming into completion. It is available at the main project page, since this is where the 'WikiProject Buffy template' on the discussion page of all Buffyverse pages directs people:

It mainly discludes articles since they are dealt with at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes

Thanks -- AnGeL X 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Orman

I'm not sure whether you were referring to me when you asked why people make jokes at her expense. When I referred to her theory about the number of syllables in the Doctor's name, I didn't mean to be making fun of her — actually, I've got a lot of respect for Orman, who broke a lot of barriers in Doctor Who fandom. I was just riffing on the idea of the Doctor having a ridiculously long name — in case you didn't know, Orman's theory (expressed in a couple novels, usually as some alien culture's myth about the Doctor) is that the Doctor's name has as many syllables as he's had companions, and that when one of his companions leaves him, he adds a syllable to his name in their memory. Which is simultaneously sweet (if viewed as a metaphor) and rather silly (if taken literally).

If other fans make fun of Ms. Orman, I'm not sure why (unless it's common-or-garden sexism). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Nick — I wasn't offended. Just confused, 'cause I hadn't seen the jokes you were referring to, and thought you might have misinterpreted my earlier comment. But I wasn't sure, which is why I posted to your talk page instead of the article's. It wasn't a big deal in any way. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I actually did post a comment to the talk page there... Debated whether to put it here instead. I could be more specific about an incident I witnessed, but not on Wikipedia where it would stay forever. IMHO, it's sexism and insecurity over her talent. Some of the dudes making bad jokes at her expense would be eaten alive at a) WorldCon, b) Clarion or c) any Xena fan gathering, anywhere, but especially in Northampton, Massachusetts grin. Noirdame 11:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Aspergian Wikipedians

Category:Aspergian Wikipedians which you have included on your user page has been proposed for deletion you can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. The is also a proposal to create an association to meet the needs of users with mental health conditions. --Salix alba (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffy the Vampire Slayer under peer review

As a Wikipedian who contributes to Buffy-related articles, you maybe interested to know that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is currently under peer review at Peer review/Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Feedback about the article at the forum, on how it might be improved upon is hugely appreciated. After successful improvements to the article, in the near future it may be submitted as a candidate for a featured article. Thanks. -- Paxomen 00:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidate review: Buffy article

Hi

Just letting WikiProject Buffyverse members know that the article 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' has recently been nominated as a candidate to become a featured article. Should it become a featured article, it will be possible for the article to appear on the Wikipedia main page on March 10th 2007, the 10th anniversary of Buffy (the premiere, "Welcome to the Hellmouth" aired March 10th 1997).

Any feedback you can offer to improve the article and/or to either object or support the nomination, would be wonderful. Thanks -- Paxomen 18:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AWB

Hey, you should consider using WP:AWB for your edits to Pokémon page categories. It's a nice program for doing edits like you're doing! --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 20:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd wish you'd stop and read this before you continue! I don't want all your edits to be reverted, but several of us at the Pokémon Collaborative Project have been looking for alternatives to sorting Pokémon by stage. --Brandon Dilbeck 22:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I responded to your question on my talk page in case you aren't watching it. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking Pokémon species

I don't think it's a bad idea to wikilink the species types in each of the Pokémon articles, but I wanted to make sure that you're disambiguating the links when necessary. For instance, Weedle is the Hairy Bug Pokémon, but in linking Bug, you linked to the Bug (disambiguation) page. I know it's ugly to have to check every time... --Brandon Dilbeck 16:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roll Call

Could I please ask - why bother with a roll call? it's a boon to have many members on a Wikiproject, and what's the point of culling lots of members from a project if none of the members are on at a single point? That's what Wikipedia's all about!! The more the merrier, surely? ;) - NP Chilla 21:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

All valid points. We all want to see as many people contributing as much help as possible. However I would like to see the WikiProject Buffyverse to be as effective as possible. Many people who have signed up as members have never made a single edit to a Buffy article. Even more have made less than 10 edits.
I will have to think carefully about how I message those who are not editing Buffy articles, but if done well, it may encourage them to return to the fold and make some improvements to our articles, or else to begin proper editing for the first time. However I'm sure many people who have signed up will no longer be interested.
Having a bulky list of many people who have little interest in doing any editing maybe preventing collaboration. I think that a smaller more accurate list which included people's special interests could be useful for people working together as a group to make improvements to Buffy articles.
IMO part of the job of the project should be to keep morale up so that the members are motivated, interested, and engaged with the Buffyverse articles. IMO it does not help build morale having a big list of members but most of which are unwilling to ever engage in any discussion or support of the Project and its goals. If the list contains fewer members one would expect a lower response if they try to engage in discussion or collaboration. For me personally I find it quite disappointing when I put in a lot of effort to get the Buffy article featured, but no one was willing to even take the time to write one sentence to 'Support' my nomination to have it on the front page on March 10 (10 years exactaly after Buffy first aired). If our project had had a smaller list then it wouldn't have been such a downer.
I suspect that having a smaller but more accuarate list may encourage a close-knit group that would support each other better. Therefore I would be pleased if the Roll Call resulted in a decreased number of members but actually increased the discussion, and collaboration regarding Buffyverse articles, and therfore went a small way to making our articles better than they otherwise would have been.
The WikiProject Star Wars (which uses Roll Calls every so often) is very well organised and has created many featured articles and even more good articles. I would hope that our project could do more to improve the quality of our articles. I know that Roll Calls are not necessarily the only reason that the Star Wars Project has made many good articles, but even so I believe it has helped.
--Paxomen 22:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I messed up your post to the Pax Man

So sorry (i'm really new to Wiki and was not to mess any pages, the Buffy Chronology, especially).

Some how you're Roll Call and what I posted is in one post (I addendumed "Once More", that's when I saw it).

Grrr Arrgh (means: really, am sorry!)

Michael 12.72.60.45 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Michael - we were all beginners once. No harm done!! ;) - NP Chilla 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buffy article - Peer Review?

I saw a request for comments, ideas, suggestions (rants?) about improving Btvs (entire) article? Wow.

Need a celebrity/captain/general that is god enough to make decisions. (Where's Dave Fury these days?) That Steve Z guy would be good idea to ask also, but he's really got Exec Producing Superboy/Smallville stories. Really good.

Wiki fascinates me, so much worry about copyrights (real evil say dam, er, darn those Kuzas, er, torpedoes and get the out the info for all).

I have no Wiki user name yet, email me if want: michaeljwaltrip@hotmail.com, shoot me, stake me, spam me gently...

Michael 12.72.60.45 21:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've had quite a lot of time to think about this, and I'm impressed by some of your ideas, certainly!
But I was thinking - the best place to put forward these ideas would probably be the Buffy WikiProject - they'd know exactly how to handle these various aspects. Thanks for bringing all of these ideas up, Michael! :) - NP Chilla 10:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Nintendo Page Redesign

A new page design is being considered for the WikiProject Nintendo page. A rough draft can be viewed here. Please add all comments and thoughts to the discussion. From the automated, Anibot 22:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter, March 2008

The Space-Time Telegraph
The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter
Issue 1 March 2008
Project News
We have five new participants: Sm9800, Seanor3, T saston, Type 40, Jammy0002.
One editor has left the project: StuartDD.
The Doctor Who portal has expanded to increase the number of selected stories to 33.
Articles of note
New featured articles
None
New featured article candidates
New good articles
Delisted articles
None
Proposals
A proposal for changing the layout of the episode pages is under way here.
A discussion about the formatting of the cast lists in episode pages is under way here.
A discussion to move United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to UNIT is under way here.
News
The Torchwood project has become a task-force under the project's scope.
The Torchwood series 2 finale airs on 4th April, and the 4th series of Doctor Who will start to air on 5th April.

For the Doctor Who project, Sceptre (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You have received this letter because you are on the newsletter recipients list. To opt-out, please remove your name.

[edit] Twin Dilemma explanation of regeneration

"His convulated explanation of how the regenerative process works"? Could we get a quote for this point, please; it sounds hilarious.

I would quote the passage, except, obviously, it's copyrighted; but the gist of it is that, when a Time Lord's body is worn out, or old, or, in the case of one Councillor Verne, not up to the expected beauty standards, "he" can change bodies by releasing great quantities of the hormone lindos, which travels through the body very fast and causes the cells to change. Gallifreyan genetic engineers have worked on this process but it's still pretty uncontrollable: some Time Lords go through their regenerations accumulating age, wisdom, and handsomeness (no word on the female Time Lords, of course...), while others go from being wise old men to brash young idiots.

There follows a drawn-out example of the emotional distress regeneration can cause: a man named Councillor Verne rose in political power solely on the power of his astonishing good looks, but caused a fight in Council resulting in his near-death because of his political ineptitude. (He voted against his own faction on a delicate matter, either because he was asleep during the debate or, some say, because he couldn't read the voting buttons.) When he went to regenerate, he ended up with a body with a face that was merely ordinary and a voice an octave too high for a man, with a sing-song quality that caused everyone who heard him speak to "involuntarily snigger". He forced a regeneration, which resulted in a bent old man body; forced another, and ended up as an amorphous blob; forced another, and became a monster so horrible the Lord President had it killed. (pp 19-21. Saward, Eric. Doctor Who # 103: The Twin Dilemma. 1985: W. H. Allen & Co, London. ISBN 0426201558.)

And this is one of the shorter, less heavy-handed infodumps in the book; other choice bits include the entire history of a type of acid called Mosten acid, Professor Archie Silvest's psychiatric work and his tendency to envision ways to kill his twin sons (as part of a convoluted introduction which boils down to "twin sons, creepy, immature, and very smart"), why cats are in fact the smartest of all Earth creatures and what one particular ginger tom thinks of himself, how Archie Silvest managed to get the husband of the woman he was having an affair with placated, the entire history of Azmael, what differentiates political heroism from the praiseworthy kind, the entire history of civilisation on Titan Three (including the effects of an inorganic poison gas known as Titan Melancholia), a detailed description of Mestor the Magnificent, how a revitalising modulator works and how Ferrail rays were discovered, what space plague was and how it was eradicated, how the inventor of the revitalising modulator and eradicator of the space plague died--and that's just halfway through the book.