Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Hi Zythe, I don't know how to use this 'talk' business so I hope this message gets to you. No hard feelings. I'm glad you enjoyed my paper. I was made aware of being cited here when I received an angry email from someone arguing with me - but actually what they were saying is what I was saying in the paper. They had misunderstood my argument based on what was in Wikipedia, hence the need to make changes. I feel totally honoured that you would quote/cite me so thank you! Lindy --Lindy orthia (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Zythe, you appear to be edit warring on Donna Noble. You are an established user and you know why edit warring is wrong, so I'll forgo the usual templated warning and just ask you not to do it. As you know, it may result in page protection or blocks. Thank you, The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That article has no strength! It was given a reprieve and then 3 years later is still nothing. Kill it. If someone wants to write an essay on the topic and the concept, they should just blog on that. Doesn't even have OR at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.129.194 (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's stab it with our steely knives! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.129.194 (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Charmed character has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What precisely are these edits - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADoctor_Who_race&action=historysubmit&diff=372683992&oldid=370885728 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Doctor_Who_character&diff=372684222&oldid=360157297 - doing? It looks like it's adding a visible, unneeded field. - J Greb (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

OK.... follow up question: Is there a need for a "unique" field that is either different for each article or only an additional one added to one or a limited few of the characters? - J Greb (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Billie, Ladybug and Other.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for not replying to your previous message, I meant to and it completely slipped my mind. Oh God, I'm ashamed of you, Liam, you're supposed to have taste. Though I must admit, I saw some kind of preview issue with pages from the Book of Shadows that got me a little nostalgic for my Charmed fanboy days.

What'd you make of Doctor Who series 5 and the finale, btw? We never discussed it.  Paul  730 20:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

River Song is excellent. I always thought she was just a one-off character who wouldn't really work on an ongoing basis (how could she live up to her reputation in the Library episodes?) but they're handling her brilliantly. Seems like they have a long-term goal for her as well, she's confusing but it works.

Yeah, the remembering/existing thing... that wasn't too clear. I wasn't sure if reality was supposed to have altered or if the characters just had their memories altered. Also, wouldn't Amy's personality be much different had she never known Rory? Reminds me of Angel season five, where Connor gets retconned away and none of the characters wonder "what the hell have we been doing for the past two seasons?". Like, how could any of seasons 3 and 4 have happened without Connor? Stupid.

Speaking of Angel, seems there's some subtle crossover between the Spike comic and S8. Not sure if Joss has been quietly woking with Brian, but apparently Willow's appearing in Spike and it's all going to gel together perfectly. You kept up with any of IDWs stuff?  Paul  730 21:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I feel so stalked... "You're always on there, with your Anole avatar." That's cause Anole is the shit! My post count on SlayAlive has decreased a lot lately, because I've become so jaded with Buffy. Season Eight has just put me in a bad mood with the series, and it's depressing to talk about. I've been watching True Blood though, and it's making me nostalgic for the early Buffy seasons, where there was actually a level of horror. I think I'm going to rewatch the whole series soon, to wash the taste of S8 away.  Paul  730 21:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So how was Charmed? And you said on FB that you caught up with S8, what are your thoughts? Am I being too harsh on it?  Paul  730 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think my biggest problem with Season Eight is, as an Angel fan, there's been no explanation for why Angel became Twilight. Where are his friends? Where is Connor? Why is Angel willing to sacrifice his son to be with Buffy (which totally goes against his entire character). There's been some flimsy excuse about "the universe" influencing him but it's not clear enough. Maybe Joss will explain it in time but I feel the last arc should have already done that to an extent. It reminds me of Angel season four, where they destroyed Cordelia's character and then said "Oh, it's okay because that wasn't really Cordy after all!"

The fact that the Spike book is crossing over to an extent gives me a lot of hope for both series, because lately the Buffyverse had felt like fractured nonsense and I've become a little jaded with the whole thing. I really hope it all comes together in the end though. Season Nine certainly sounds promising, I approve of the multiple titles plan. I've always said there should be some middle ground between IDW's endless spin-offs and Dark Horse's "let's cram it all into one series" mentality. Season Eight has been far too long.  Paul  730 17:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I imagine the other books will be Spike: AtF-style miniseries or oneshots rather than ongoing. Although I've been saying for years that "No Future for You" should have been the first story of a Faith ongoing comic. It's hard to say who deserves spin-offs, since we don't know their S9 roles, but Willow and Faith/Giles seem the most obvious. I'd like Satsu, Kennedy, and Andrew to get ones as well. And maybe Xander, if only so he gets his own Willow-style logo. ;) I'm impressed by Dark Horse doing a Riley one-shot, since as Allie says, he's not exactly the Wolverine of the Buffyverse.  Paul  730 17:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Listened to this earlier on and thought of you, in case you missed it. Not sure if there's anything in there not already in the article, but there were a few interesting tidbits to my ear. All the best, Steve ^T • C 20:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You sure you're not confusing that with a different article? Isis is mentioned twice on Chloe's page, once where I reinstated the explanation of what it is and the second time later on when discussing season 8.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd drop by and say "hello", having noticed that you'd added your name as a project member. Things are a little quiet at the moment, alas, but there are a few of us working away in OU-related areas, even if we don't always use the project talk page. I've been beefing up the OU Portal, for example, and Jpbowen (talk · contribs) has been working on clearing out the categories. If you've got any ideas for working on articles or lists (or anything else), speak up! Best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 07:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The article Glamorama you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Glamorama for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Kaguya-chan (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I remember asking you for some assistance for my draft of the Russell T Davies article several months ago, but kind of drifted off after we both had commitments to our separate university studies. If you're not too busy, could you lend a hand finding those reception sources? (although, just now, I've found an IMDB page listing his awards; which makes both our jobs easier). Sceptre ^(talk) 02:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, reception sections tend to be hard for articles about people. Mind, outside the Doctor Who forum's "gay agenda" meme, I think the only common criticism of Davies' writing is the finales... they have a pattern for lacklustre resolutions, and remarkably so. Also, re Midnight: as I found out earlier, from IMDB, Rusty got nominated for a BAFTA for that episode alone. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh, apparently I'm better at the sections than I thought. I'm currently trawling the Independent's Pink Lists... 2009's is badly set up, and 2005's not on the website... Sceptre ^(talk) 19:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I surprised even myself, to be honest. I thought I'd never get it done. I just had a go through the BAFTA archives on Friday night and Saturday lunch and thought "huh, this might be doable after all". Good thing I kept all the DWM back issues from February 2008 onwards... well, next stop is Series 4, I guess. I haven't been keeping up with the series five articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sooo excited for Spike. It always sounded excellent, but now it has the Whedon stamp of canon (kinda) and ties into S8, it's officially the most exciting thing to come out of the Buffyverse in a long time. I just hope all these S8 plans haven't sidelined some of Lynch's original plots... he mentioned that Spike would be meeting the actress who played She-Spike in the Angel movie, which sounded great.

Yeah, rewriting the Spike appearances would be fun, especially his comic section. I'll take the well-written comment as a compliment, since I'm pretty sure I wrote most of that biography myself back before Bignole whipped me into shape (took ages to source all the episodes). I'd do the standard Appearances section, his important backstory in "Fool for Love" and "Lies My Parents Told Me" can be covered there.

Btw, sorry for not doing that RTD FAR, it was too long for me to properly review and I didn't want to put a half-arsed "support". The article looks good, maybe a little long-winded though.  Paul  730 00:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty ecstatic to be honest. The whole Dark Horse/IDW schism was killing the Buffyverse as a consistant universe, especially when you had Angel appearing in both titles in vastly different roles. I think going back to DH is the best thing that's happened to Angel since AtF ended, because now it actually matters again. See my SlayAlive post here. What do you make of it?

I haven't bought the TW magazine in ages so I can't help you there. How awesome does the new series look though? The actual organization sounds really credible for the first time in a while... I mean, five guys saving the world from a jeep in Cardiff was kind of charming but I can't help but love the idea of them as a global power. The Whoniverse is doing very well for itself.  Paul  730 19:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, I found it pretty awful. Buffy's Bella-like behaviour is borderline character assassination ("Oh Angel, I don't trust you but you have my heart so what can I do?") and kinda reminds me of this episode of South Park. Still no solid explanation for why Angel became Twilight... a few incoherent flashbacks and vague excuses doesn't really cut it. Spike... are we sure it's time travel? Don't think that was explicit. His bug ship seems ridiculous but I kinda trust Brian Lynch to make it work (how times have changed, eh?). I hope the bugs aren't aliens, don't want aliens in the Buffyverse. The whole thing just seems messy, cheesy, overstuffed, and badly written. And I have a feeling the Master is only going to add to that. I'm still hoping against hope that it will all make sense in the end, but I gotta be honest, I don't see it happeneing. Have kinda resigned myself to the possibily that S8 might actually be a bit shit, all things considered. :( I want to be proved wrong, believe me.  Paul  730 19:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right and it's something I've been gradually realising over the past few arcs... that Joss is just trying to write a fun, silly story and isn't taking things as seriously as he did in the past. But it's still frustrating, after watching five seasons of Angel, seeing the character reduced to a two-dimensional "boyfriend" character again. The story just feels rather shallow; the plot is ridiculous and the characterisation questionable. The lack of emotion in the Buffy/Spike reunion kind of represents how far the comics have fallen from the TV show, IMO. Compare their interaction in "Chosen", to their interaction here, and the difference is painful. I'm no shipper, but that moment was 7 years coming and deserved to be handled better.

I think the Big Ben scene was a) a reference to Doctor Who, and b) a reference to Spike always smashing into things when he makes an entrance. Pretty sure the Spike stuff was happening in a linear way, although who in God's name knows anymore. I think it was someone at IDW that referred to the bugs as aliens, but then they're not exactly in the mood to promote DH's stories.  Paul  730 20:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

X-Factor has referenced Doctor Who before so I'm not surprised that Jack is an influence, David is obviously a fan. I've actually fallen away from X-Factor a little... the characterisation is always rock solid but I feel the book has been dull and directionless since X-Men: Messiah Complex and some rubbish artwork hasn't helped. It's so detatched from the main X-Books that it feels irrelevant. I also dislike some of the cast... even Peter David can't make me like Longshot and Darwin, and I feel they drag down the book. I'd rather Jubilee, Beak and Wind Dancer joined the team... you don't really need powers in X-Factor and those are all great characters who have been sadly neglected the past few years.

I've not read past the "Overtime" arc (although I own the next volume) but I am a fan of Rictor and Shatterstar. I think both characters are shite (Rictor is dull and Shatterstar is from the Mojoverse which makes him instantly shite) but David has managed to make them likable. He's great at polishing turds. I think they'd be less appealing if they weren't gay though. I'm not sure how David defines Rictor's sexuality, although I'd imagine Wolfbane's return will allow that to be explored.

Have you been following the Avengers: Children's Crusade story? It's about Magneto tracking down his grandkids, Wiccan and Speed. Wiccan is gay as I'm sure you know, and there's some cute but frustratingly tame scenes with him and Hulkling. There's a scene where Captain America gives them separate single beds and Wiccan magicks it into a double, or Speed interrupts them from kissing on panel, little things like that. I'm just happy the Young Avengers are getting some screentime.

PS, the new Buffy preview has somewhat restored my faith in S8. We'll see. :)  Paul  730 21:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey I was just wondering why you reverted my edit to Joyce Summers. Your edit summary didn't provide any insight as to why you reverted the edit. I saw that you're an established editor, so I didn't undo your reversion. I used content from the article to add information to the infobox, so the information's encyclopedic.

You can reply to this message here or on my talk page, but if you reply here, could you leave a talkback template on my talkpage? I don't check my watchlist that often. Thanks! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 18:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm jet-lagged, I'm probably just as un-understandable. I was wondering about the whole infobox thing, because for some characters (not just in Buffy but in general, have a lot more information in their infoboxes, and it doesn't just seem to be a factor of their importance in a book, show, etc. Wikipedia (or shows', books' etc.'s respective WikiProjects) should have a policy on how much information should go into an infobox relative to the character's importance, etc. I, for one, usually start with the infobox and then move on to the article. Maybe it's just me, but I find it easier that way, especially if it's a long article and I'm just looking for one fact. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 19:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, on the whole essay thing. In my opinion, infoboxes for main characters should be succinct, but not confusing, like you said. For minor characters, such as Joyce Summers, I think the infobox should be like a mini "notability" outline. Something that reveals how the character is notable to the series (book, etc.). So Joyce Summers' infobox would show that she's affiliated with the Scooby Gang and that Buffy and Dawn are her daughters. Also, maybe the name of her ex-husband, since her ex is the father of her daughter (daughters, if you count Dawn). But her infobox shouldn't include that Dawn is only sorta-kinda her daughter because all her memories are fabricated, etc. That belongs in the main part of the article. Additionally, the fact that she dated a robot named Ted is better off in the rest of the article, since she only dated him for one episode.

I'm seriously hoping you're a Buffy fan and understood what I just said... If not, I could probably come up with a Dr. Who or Star Trek analogy...? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 19:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Why don't we work on an essay talking about that, to give other puzzled people some guidance on this whole situation? Unless there's some infobox policy to that effect already set in place that I don't know about...? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okie doke. Thanks for listening to my slightly long-winded explanations and questions. I'm a bit of a rambler. And thanks for answering my questions so politely and helpfully! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I know it's over 18 months ago now, but on the Atom (Ray Palmer) page, you added "Ray is able to eradicate supercrime and create a utopian Earth until Kyle, Donna, Jason and Bob are able to track him down." but there's no other mention of who "Bob" is. Can you elucidate? Rojomoke (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Having assessed this article in accordance with the criteria, I have placed the nomination on hold pending certain adjustments. The article is a fine effort, and it seems to me that it now requires just a bit of work to reach the standards of GA. SuperMarioMan 03:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Now passed, after a final formatting run-through. Good work! SuperMarioMan 12:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zythe. Having a "Powers and abilities" section is pretty standard for comic book superheroes, including an FA like Superman. "Characteristics" is a possibility, but it edges closely to OR if we fill it with things we draw from the comics on our own (eg. Rictor is a friendly character, getting along well with his other teammates. He typically takes a technical support role for the team's missions.) Unless we can fill a "Characteristics" section with genuine third-party, out-of-universe, notable content, it'll be odd for it to just discuss his sexual orientation. If the latter is the case, then it's more appropriate to have a "Sexual orientation" section, since it may be the most notable aspect about the character in real-world, in lieu of anything else.Luminum (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the unique nature of comicbook material, we give them leeway on relying a good deal on primary sources. It's only when those articles seek something beyond a C, such as GA or FA status that third-party sources become imperative. Now given, many of the minor superhero character pages out there are really stubs with little future, it's all about where you stand on the inclusionist/deletionist philosophy on Wikipedia. Do you give leeway to small-interest articles in because we have nearly infinite resources, or do you hold everything to the rules? Personally, I lean more toward keeps than deletes, except for extreme cases.

In any case, I Rictor may pass for GA. You can check out a similar character I worked on and moved to GA (Anole (comics)). That really got there because I trimmed through FCH, and had a lot of third party sources on some plot lines that involved him and the character's creation. The layout for an FA article would probably cut through a lot of character history and focus on publication history. It offends some people to see what they consider "notable character history" cut, but if you want an accessible article, you have to do it. Superman arguably has a ton of character history, but it's really just distilled down to the basic iconic things that others write about: Krypton, orphan, country boy, Metropolis, Louis Lane, Lex Luther, Justice League, etc. I'm trying to find the time to do the same to Jean Grey. I populated her Publication History, and that means ripping out a lot of that enormous Character History section. Just some musings.Luminum (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless, of course, you can properly restructure it. Slash and burn, or revise and restructure?Luminum (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The difficult part is writing the publication history and not making the FCH redundant as hell. BTW, I loved the Cordelia Chase page. Really well done!Luminum (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I was very impressed by your Anole.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the article was autotranslated from a foreign language; from the Portuguese, if I'm not mistaken. I've tried talking to some users, but my efforts have been fruitless, and the whole article is now just a mess. *sigh* Yves (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A few months ago you tagged the Blair Waldorf article with regard to length, specifically in the TV section. Wanted to let you know that things have been cleaned up a little. -- James26 (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can you participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Glamorama cover 2006.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 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)