User talk:Stardust8212

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Futurama related Other

[edit] Your Comment

Thanks for your comment. As you presumably saw when you went to the user's talk page, the various AN/I, the self-admitted sockpuppetry, the trollish behaviour, the extensive postings from all kinds of editors asking for the user to desist in making attacks, and so on and so on means that we need to be clear when dealing with querulous, fractious, disruptive editors of this type. Wikipedia works by consensus and good faith. Editors who, as a matter of course, flaunt those rules, try to game the system, troll, or routinely promote their own views in a way that violates the spirit of Wikipedia need to be told so, in my view bluntly and directly. You draw my attention to kettle, so my apologies that you feel I, too, am systematically uncivil, wikilawyerish, trollish, pointy and disruptive. However, my own shortcomings aside, please accept that my comment has nothing to do with the arbcom case and is a statement directed at the editor's credibility which, in my view, is 0. At any event, Vivan will come back at me swinging and I anticipate a flurry of indignance, heaped with accusations of incivility, bad faith etc... which may well convince editors that my own credibility is also sorely lacking. Plus ca change.... Eusebeus (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

FYI, you may wish to grab some cites from here as related to Awards for Futurama episodes. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the heads up, I'm trying to find a ref for the 2001 Futurama Emmy nom, it may have been "Amazon Women in the Mood" but I don't have a RS for that. Stardust8212 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment on Category Redirect template

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Futurama episodes

I'd like to help out with improving them, but I'm also trying to save the episodes of The Simpsons (I proposed that we merge some of them, but that wasn't very well received by other project members) so that is my higher priority right now. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you ever need any opinions about what should/shouldn't be merged, feel free to ask. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Central discussion of objective criteria

Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Objective criteria for episode notability

I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC nom

I put Hell Is Other Robots up at FAC. Would you be willing to help address points if they crop up in comments at the FAC discussion? Cirt (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'll watchlist the nom page. Stardust8212 14:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. One support so far, we'll see how it goes. Cirt (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you able to get screenshots from the episode? A point was brought up at the FAC - perhaps a better fair-use image would be a shot with Bender and The Robot Devil, as opposed to Fry and Leela? Cirt (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do it tonight (I'm at work) think about any specific scenes you might want an image of (Fiddle battle, escape from robot hell, one of the punishments, etc.) If you think of something which would be specifically useful I can get that, otherwise I'll use my discretion. Stardust8212 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

See the FAC comment. Just so long as it is something that is specifically discussed already in the article, even better if it were something not just in the plot section but discussed in other sections as well. We could actually have up to 3 images and still have fair use, that is about the norm on some of The Simpsons FAs. Here are some potential ideas:

Bender with Reverend Lionel Preacherbot and the symbol for Robotology.
Bender awakening to see the Robot Devil in Robot Hell.
Fiddle battle would be a nice one, as it's already discussed in the Cultural references section (that might be the best idea). Cirt (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Qst (talk · contribs) helpfully did a lot of work and noted his efforts on the FAC page. Could you perhaps address some of the other points? You are a bit more familiar than me with certain things like the DVD commentary. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't get to this until later than I expected. Some screen shots ~~here~~, you can upload them or I will if you tell me which ones you like. I didn't like most of the fiddle battle scenes but I think there are some other good options here. I'm gonna work on the commentary now. Stardust8212 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Actually, I think that link doesn't work so:~~Stardust8212 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Links removed since we're done. Stardust8212 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You've been loved by Cirt

Hey there! Cirt has loved you by placing a heart icon in the top-right corner of your userpage. Don't worry, it's not vandalism, but simply a small way to spread the WikiLove. If you don't really like it, feel free to revert it and make it go away, and no hard feelings; after all, it's just a small token of appreciation. If you like it, just add your name here, but again, there's no need to feel upset if you don't. Love and best wishes, Cirt (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your help at the FAC, and before that getting the article Hell Is Other Robots up to WP:GA status as well. It's been a blast working collaboratively with you on this. Cirt (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Neat, thanks. Let me know if you need any other help. Stardust8212 01:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA

Congrats! Cirt (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but you did most of the hard stuff. Stardust8212 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have done it without you and Qst (talk · contribs), and that's a fact. Cirt (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asking for help on WiKUpedia project

Hi Stardust8212,

My name is Jarrod and I'm currently working on a project called WiKUpedia, with the goal of providing the one-stop shop for all things KU. We've had a tremendous response from the community since we went live on Sunday but we need help organizing and improving the wiki. We decided to reach out to experienced Wikipedia editors with ties to the University. You can read a little more about our project in a news story in the Lawrence Journal World

Please feel free to take a look around our project and if this sounds like something that interests you, please respond on my talk page or by email. Thank you so much in advance. --Jarrodm (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Dwarf peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Red Dwarf talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Red Dwarf Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. If you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Red Dwarf --Nreive (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Futurama

While I wouldn't mind joining Wikiproject Futurama, my edits in regard to Futurama have only been very minor (i.e. removing speculation and such), although I wouldn't mind devoting a bit of extra time to cleaning up some of the articles if you guys need a Wikijanitor :P. Sillygostly (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Valentine's Day!

User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Happy Valentine's Day to you as well. Stardust8212 03:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Godfellas

Sorry if violating etiquette; new. I'm responsible for the discussion of Dschubba/Teshuvah that you deleted. I see the point that the "teshuvah" interpretation has a citable source; however, the word as spoken in the episode is far closer to "Dschubba" and, as it happens, I have seen the original script and know that it was in fact written (and intended as) "Dschubba". I don't know the principled way to discuss this in the article, but it seems clearly inappropriate that the mishearing (by an author (Pinsky) who was looking for Gospel references and whose authority is thus suspect) should be cited as pure fact simply because there is a reference for it.

(Note, BTW, that the episode transcript at http://www.futurama-madhouse.com.ar/scripts/3acv20.shtml has it far closer to "Dschubba".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.147.215 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is one of the flaws of the Wikipedia system. Often times what makes its way into Wikipedia isn't what is "true" but what is "verifiable". The way I see it the "Teshuvah" reference is verifiable as it has been published in a reliable source (since you're new I'll point you to Wikipedia's Policy and guideline on Verifiability and Reliable Sources). Now, the "Dschubba" may seem correct to us but we're not verifiable nor is Futurama Madhouse a Reliable Source. So what do we do? Discussing that there are two opinions on what the line means without a reliable source for one of them is essentially original research (See WP:OR, another policy). It's a bit of a bind. The only options are to include the reference with the citation or remove it entirely. I don't like the idea of simply removing the information because some people think it's wrong but it may be the best option. Stardust8212 02:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I figured on the basis of my superficial understanding of Policy. Would it be admissible to say something like "Pinsky(footnote) asserts that the monks visited by F&L occupy the monastery of "Teshuvah", which is the Hebrew etc etc"? Also, there may be several online transcripts in addition to the one cited, and I bet they're all closer to "Dschubba"; what -- if anything -- would make one of them Reliable enough to be cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.147.215 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your rewrite makes sense and I think that is a good alternative. As for the online transcripts it really depends on the site they are on. Most transcripts will be on fansites or imdb which are not reliable in most instances. If we could find an "official transcript" that could be cited it may work or if the transcript was hosted by a site that was well known for accuracy of reporting or if the site was well known for being peer reviewed. It's kind of a sketchy gray world when you start trying to describe what is and isn't relaible. I've seen things I thought should be reliable and been told that they weren't and it's gone the other way as well. I think we really have to take each one on an individual basis. By the way, you can avoid the sinebot if you add four tildes ~~~~ to the end of each of your posts. Stardust8212 22:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I took my best shot at discussing the variant transcriptions; delete or modify it if you think it's necessary.76.89.147.215 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the wording slightly but I think the meaning is still the same, also I think the cite at the end of the statement is sufficient rather than adding one after Pinsky's name. If you ever have luck finding another source for the alternate interpretation let me know, I'd be happy to help you with the citation templates or cleaning the article up (I'd like to eventually get it to Good article status which is why I am being so harsh about sourcing). Happy editing. Stardust8212 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RFC error

Probably a glitch in the algorithm used by the RFC bot to detect errors. The issue you pointed out rarely happens. You were right in reverting it. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a strange contrail

Hi,Stardust8212,
May I please ask you to take a look at this image and tell me, if it could have been created by Crow Instability. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you do not know, it still would have been nice to respond.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been out of town since the afternoon of March 8th and have only just gotten back today. I had very limited internet access until now and I hadn't had the time to look at the picture. I was hoping to take some time to look into your question after I returned home and had normal access to my resources before responding but if you want an immediate answer then, no, I don't know. Happy editing! Stardust8212 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have a Happy Spring Day!

Happy First Day of Spring!

--Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

Hey, thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. Useight (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for vandalising the Jurassic Bark page, my brother took over my computer again. Apologies if this isn't how you post comments. Naggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.177.118 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Lifetime}}

I'm not sure why you're removing this template in your clean-ups, but please remembers that it also sets DEFAULTSORT, so you should include that as well as the birth and death year categories. David Underdown (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it seems Autowikibrowser did that and I didn't notice, I'll keep an eye out for it in future runs though. Stardust8212 11:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Futurama characters

Do those have much potential to improve beyond their current level (cruft with some mixed in real world details that can't hold an article)? I'm thinking about running through, gutting them down to the basics, and leaving the appropriate blank sections. It doesn't seem like it would be worth it if nothing will come out of it, though. TTN (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I ask myself that pretty often. I think there's hope for some of them: Fry, Leela, Bender and probably the Professor, Zoidberg, Amy and Hermes. The others I've been of the opinion for awhile that they could do with merging into the various lists of recurring characters. I have found that trimming the main characters tends to meet with some resistance, I've tried it a couple times with Bender and it's yet to stick. You can give it a try if you want to, I'm unlikely to do anything drastic myself, the arbitration situation is still too hot for my tastes, I mean the way they've pulled out the torches and pitchforks over Kww has just been ridiculous. Stardust8212 01:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted Bender. Hopefully, it'll stay. Did I get the part about the in-universe creation correct? I couldn't really understand what exactly it meant, so it is possibly wrong. TTN (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say the line about the creation that you left lacks the context to make it meaningful. The issue is in one episode Bender is shown emerging fully formed from a machine while in a second he regresses backwards through child-like stages. Cohen states that it is possible for both episodes to fit continuity because Bender could have progressed through the life stages inside the machine but these simply weren't shown in the first episode. It's hard to sum it up coherently in a single sentence, I'll have a go at it if it isn't reverted before I can think of a good wording.