User talk:Calabraxthis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Errol Flynn

I am surprised, to put it mildly. Happy to take your word for it, though a source would be great so others don't delete it again. Euryalus 11:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's obscure facts like this that make Wikipedia fun. Now all we need is a source for the 'sex with a maid' claim :) Euryalus 18:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ICC

If we are talking about how to be polite, then how about you start by getting my name right, can you do that? It's THUGCHILDz not THUG. I responded on the talk page and it was basically removed because it's pov sourced with another pov.--THUGCHILDz 06:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with your addition to the ICC entry. There has been far too much whitewash of the ICC on this entry in the past by the appropriately named "Thugchild" ! PaddyBriggs 11:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I would like to help you get around with wiki and I know you are doing this in good faith but like me when I was new here, you'll face some hardships but eventually you'll learn it's policies etc. One thing was that the controversies are covered in its' own articles where they are not pov. If we were going to put a section on every cricket controversy because the ICC is the governing body then we would have to put sections starting from the bodyline and so on. The fact that some one is criticized by the media doesn't make it encyclopedic or notable in the matter of the subject and doesn't mean they need to be included. The media and an encyclopedia shouldn't go together. The fact that a media might have reported something wrongly doesn't need to be in the encyclopedia. It's already covered in the other articles anyway where it is much more of a notable subject than this. I never said you had an pov on the issue but it's still pretty much pov from one point of view on the matter. Anyways, I really don't appreciate PaddyBriggs accusing me of whitewashing the article and making that personal attack. One last thing, making edits like this people will generally think it's in bad faith, as most including me don't see the point of having this picture on Former president Bill Clinton's article; so I would advice you to refrain from this kind of edits but try to make all your edits npov with providing both sides of a story fairly and remember even if npov not everything is encyclopedic or notable enough all articles so not everything needs to be added. If you need any help at anytime please feel free to ask also if you're into cricket than I'll like to show you our invite, if not just ignore it :)-

Hello Calabraxthis! I noticed that you contribute to cricket related articles. We are a "WikiProject" aiming to expand, improve and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. We would like to invite you to join us. If you would like to help but don't know what to do, please see our project page or inquire on our talk page. You may sign up for the project on our members list. Happy editing!

--THUGCHILDz 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature Formatting

Hey, I'm not really a computer guy either but I'm got the hang of things. Anyways, to change the colors, all you need to do is come up with what you want and then go to # My preferences which is between "My talk" and "My watchlist" on the top right hand corner of your screen. After you get there, put it in the box next to "Signature:" and check the box beside "Raw signature" and save.--THUGCHILDz 22:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare Collaboration

The Shakespeare Project has begun a collaboration to bring its main article, William Shakespeare, to FA status. If you wish to contribute, please review the to-do list on its talk page. Let's make this article an FA! Wrad 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Shakespeare Wikiproject is starting another collaboration to bring Romeo and Juliet to GA status. Our last collaboration on William Shakespeare is still in progress, but in the copyedit stage. If you have strong copyedit skills, you may wish to continue the work on that article. Members with skills in other areas are now moving on. Improving Romeo and Juliet article will set a standard for all other Shakespeare plays, so we look forward to seeing everyone there. Thanks for all your help with the project. Wrad 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin

Thanks for the useful Latin lesson in your recent edit summary re: Roedean School ;-) – Kieran T ^(talk) 07:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare project - New collaboration debate

The Shakespeare project's first collaboration has ended in success, with William Shakespeare reaching FA status! Congrats to all who chipped in! We also had success in our second collaboration Romeo and Juliet, which is now a GA. Our next step is deciding which article to collaborate on next. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare#Next Collaboration to help us choose. Thanks. Wrad 04:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlet

The Shakespeare Project's new collaboration is now to bring Hamlet to GA status. Wrad 00:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Shore Old Boys

Hey Calabraxthis,

No worries, I shall look into it now and see if I can find anything. Cheers! Loopla 11:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrollboxes

Please stop adding the scrollbox to reference sections. Scrolling lists should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers. Please see the citation guidelines for details. I understand that you were just trying to make it look better, but you need to revert every article you've done this to. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Calabraxthis. First, my apology for the tardy reply. Second, in regards to the scrollbox reflist, I have to admit that it was my mistake to use it on article CIA since at that time I only saw its provisional convenience and wasn't aware of its function. Although its convenience in viewing is undeniable, this format also demonstrates to be very problematic. From my personal experience, I remember last time when I printed an article using scrollbox, the reference section appeared a blank box on paper. There was already a discussion about it and most of editors agreed that this format must be avoided. So that is. I myself love scrollbox, too, but once it makes too many troubles, we shouldn't expand its usage. Happy editing. @pple complain 10:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second Test

Calabraxthis wrote inter alia:

"Sachin Tendulkar (36) given not out by Steve Bucknor - Tendulkar was struck lbw low on the pad in front of the stumps by the second ball of the 79th over of the Indian innings bowled by Michael Clarke. Bucknor adjudged it not out. Tendulkar went on to score 154 not out.

As you will know from the Talk page, I was in favour of including this edit of yours as I believe it presents an objective account of all of the umpiring mistakes which occurred during the match, some of which went against Australia, but most against India.

I see that this has decision has now been deleted again.

... I was wondering whether you have seen the decision discussed in any media commentary?"

Quantummeruit replied:

The decision to adjudge Tendulkar not out was referred to by Peter Lalor writing in The Australian newspaper http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23025954-5001505,00.html and http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23025289-5014229,00.html.

The appeal and decision are referred to, but not described in any detail, in the commentary at http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ausvind/engine/current/match/291352.html?innings=2;view=commentary.

I agree that this decision should be included in the list of umpiring mistakes which occurred during the match. Unfortunately, I agree also that most of the poor umpiring decisions were made to the detriment of India.

However, if anything has characterised the media and other accounts of the match, and indeed the events which have followed it, it is an all pervasive lack of objectivity. So, I am not surprised that someone with an Indian axe to grind has seen fit to delete it.

I should be pleased if, after you have viewed the recording of the appeal and decision, you would reinstate the reference to this decision.

Quantummeruit (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I find that the only problem in your proposal of including lbws is the fact that there are generally so many, particularly in desperate times when appeals come as soon as ball touches pad inside the line regardless of angle and spin. By the way, thanks for the compliment but the hard work was mostly User:AMBerry's with the scorecard and they deserve the compliments more. Darrowen (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DC's Helix articles

I have replied to your message on my talk page. StuartDD _{contributions} 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I just noticed that you have created a whole bunch of articles about the comic book series that DC released as a part of this imprint. I thought I'd tell you that I've been working on The Black Lamb at User:Stephen Day/Sandbox.

I'd hate to get it to the point that I felt it was ready to be moved to The Black Lamb (something I'm most likely going to be doing sometime this week), only to find out that you had created another article where I needed to move it to. Stephen Day (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Black Lamb was the only article of the Helix imprint I was going to create. Have fun with the others. :) Stephen Day (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's ready now in case you're intertested in seeing it. :) Stephen Day (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. :)

About the copyright on the image. Tim Truman recently began offering The Black Lamb free online here. I can't see him being able to do this without any apparent involvement from DC if he didn't have copyright over the material. Stephen Day (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comics - notability

You indicated leaving the thread alone, so I am letting you know I have responded again, and also that other people may respond and may have other opinions to mine. I'd also like to apologise if I have in some way offended you. That wasdn't my intent. I just feel it is far more useful to discuss specific example, like the articles you are creating or intend to create, than discuss generalisations. All the best. Hiding T 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't personally have too much of a problem with the Sheva's War article. I think the plot synopsis is a tad too long, I tend to think two paragraphs is enough unless the work is of major significance. I can see why you are concerned by notability though, because there are no outside sources in the article. It's hard to know how a deletion debate will go, to be honest. I've been wary of having notability guidance for comics because they tend to become divisive and interpreted in the strictest possible interpreation available. For example, I helped draft WP:WEB, which in part covers webcomics. There are now very few articles on Wikipedia covering individual webcomics, and the list of webcomics is restricted only to those with articles. That experience has guided me to my current position. The best bet is to fall back on policy, namely WP:V, which states that If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. That's what I feel is the standard for notability on Wikipedia. Find independent sourcing for info to base an article upon, for example [1], [2], [3] or [4]. Personally I'm something of a m:mergist in an m:eventualist's body, but there are a number of people on Wikipedia who are m:deletionists, m:essentialists or something else entirely. Really though, there is no way of knowing whether your article will be deleted or not. I've been helping compile a list of comics and animation related deletion debates since September at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation/archive, but glancing at it I'd suggest it is rare for an article on a comic book series to be nominated. Hope that all helps.Hiding T 16:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saw Robot

seems to have significant descriptive content, so I've declined the speedy. There seem to be references also. If you really want to try to delete it, try afd; I cannot predict the result. 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We%27re_Only_in_It_for_the_Money

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Profanity . Only way to express stated information in article is with the profanity included. I'm just trying to clear up vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.5.210 (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John "Sawyer" Ford

I made a minor annotation and linked "Pillsbury" to "Pillsbury Doughboy" because people outside the United States (or the realm of popular culture) might not be familiar with the reference. It's not vandalism, despite you attempting to brand it that, and I'm adding it back in because it expands the article. 12.22.225.226 (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Wilkos Security

Just out of curiousity why did you remove the Security section from The Steve Wilkos Show article?

75.110.137.47 (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I do have an account, I thought I had logged in. I am deeply sorry. Haysead (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The apology

I'm sorry. I vandalized a page of Tsutomu Miyazaki. I'll not vandalize again. Forgive me. --210.237.33.233 (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Calabraxthis! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 17:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Apology

No worries! When I saw you'd made a self-revert it was all good :) SMC (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doczilla's RfA

.: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :.

Thanks for !voting! Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!" Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. I am deeply grateful.

Calabraxthis Thank you for casting the81st vote in support.

     "The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler

Doczilla RAWR! 07:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use VP with caution.

I notice that you just got VandalProof. It's a powerful program which can accomplish a lot of good, but it also has some glitches that you have to watch out for. If you want to know more, feel free to ask me about it. Doczilla _RAWR! 08:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind if I answer your question on Doczilla's talk page: the undisputed best vandal-fighting tool is a fairly new one called huggle. · AndonicO ^Hail! 12:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Either Twinkle or huggle sounds more reliable than VP. Twinkle doesn't work on IE, though. I don't know about huggle. All the notes about being careful because huggle is in development have deterred me from trying it yet. Doczilla _RAWR! 21:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

huggle is better, very few bugs (bugs are mainly for admin-related tasks, anyways, like failing to delete a page, or re-reporting a user to AIV rather than blocking). If you'd like, I'll e-mail you the latest version Gurch sent. · AndonicO ^Hail! 15:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sent it; sorry for the delay. · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. A tip: learning a few keyboard shortcut keys should increase your reverting speed significantly. · AndonicO ^Hail! 23:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prometheus article

sorry about the edit last night, i was trying to add some info and when i saved the whole talk page was gone. my apologies... thx for the revert! -M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.177.174 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't

I know Joe personally, that is his given nickname and thought it should be included, don't warn me about anything when honestly I did nothing "wrong". So stop it or my cat will beat u up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.47.2 (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copts

please look at the pages of those people on Wiikipedia and tell me what it is not correct to say they are leading surgeons or leading engineers? what does leading mean then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.88.39 (talk) 07:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

you sent me a message about blanking out kent school district. all i did was move the lawsuit section after the schools so i did not blank out anything. dont have to be rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.32.112 (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spud Gun Edit

Why do you feel that my edit to Spud Gun was unconstructive? I'm pretty knowledgeable about both spud guns and welding and I think that the info I added was accurate. Care to comment? Phasmatisnox (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2008 (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 Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (FAC) New good articles Dalek (Doctor Who episode) Astrid Peth 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) 18:28, 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] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Star crossed 01.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Star crossed 01.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] please explain reverts to sesame street

the article switches from british to american spellings indiscriminately including 'color' and 'colour', 'favorite' and 'favourite', and 'program' and 'programme'. don't you agree that it should be one or the other and not switching between? And as it is originally and american made show, filmed in nyc, how do we justify the british versions in the article? please keep in mind my edits are made in good faith.

Thank you for your response. Don't you agree first of all, that the article should be consistent. and second, i once made a change to how 'colour' was spelled in an article about bird taxonomy. It was explained that the researcher being quoted was british therefore the british spelling was appropriate. Good enough. Seeing how Sesame Street is an American show, shouldn't the same logic apply. Let's apply the rule to all of wikipedia or none of it, not just when we want it to work for us. Also, 'american v. rest of the world' is irrelevant. american spelling is legitimate. as is british spelling. the origin of the subject of the article really should be the determining factor in deciding the spelling of certain words. that seems to be the only fair and rational rule to apply to a multinational wiki site written in english. thanks! and please vote for obama ;-) 12.25.86.34 (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Vs. British English

Hello, this is a direct cut and paste from Wikipedia FAQ's

Should I use American English or British English? People contribute to the English language Wikipedia in every possible variety and dialect of formal written English. The English language Wikipedia particularly welcomes contributions from editors whose first language is not English. Still, it is generally good form to keep usage consistent within a given article. The official policy is to use British (AKA "Commonwealth") spelling when writing about British (or Commonwealth) topics, and American for topics relating to the United States. General topics can use any one of the variants, but should generally strive to be consistent within an article

.

See Wikipedia's Manual of Style for a more detailed explanation.

A few points in here, "the official policy is to use British spelling when writing about British topics." Sesame Street is not a "British topic."

"General topics can use any one of the variants, but should generally strive to be consistent within an article. See Wikipedia's Manual of Style for a more detailed explanation." The rest of the article 'Sesame Street' is written in American English. I switched one spelling in the effort to keep it consistent as explained above in Wikipedia's policy. You reverted it back. How do you justify that?

I am not going to get in to an editing war with you. I will let you decide whether or not you want to do the right thing here according to Wikipedia standards and practices.

Though you are not my favorite editor, I will not let that color my opinion of how you program your writing style. Like you, I have more depth of character than that of a fetus and my behavior illustrates as much. Now I need to go wash my tires and put gas in my truck. ;-) 12.25.86.34 (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry about all the re edits, had some trouble getting a part of my post to show up. 12.25.86.34 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marisa Tomei in Before the Devil Knows you are dead

Hi, My edits are based on actually watching the movie in question. They are not vandalism. The film does begin with an anal sex scene between Tomei & Hoffman. Tomei is topless throughout the movie. These are facts not opinions. Please rent the DVD & see for yourself. Incidentally, Tomei is a very pretty and talented actress, I have no problerms with nudity. Just typing in information, is all. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.59.212 (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree regarding her prettiness and her talent as an actress. But your sensationalist undergraduate prose placing undue weight on the sex without explaining its notability undoubtedly explains why I removed your edit. If you are serious, open an account. Kind regards --Calabraxthis ^(talk) 19:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)