User talk:Cain Mosni/Archive 00

Welcome!

Hi fellow Wikipedian, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia. Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images. How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status. Manual of Style, how articles should be written.

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism. Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable. Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created. Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one. Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: (~~~~). This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)- Mailer Diablo 17:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Gerry Anderson

Hello! Yes, I'm quite a big fan of Gerry Anderson programmes, although I haven't seen many of the newer productions. I must admit to being tempted to buy some DVDs though! I couldn't help noticing that most Anderson articles on here are quite short or messy, so I've made a template in the hope that people will perhaps improve them. Bob 01:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Destiny Angel

Hi! I appreciate the effort you've put into Captain Scarlet and related articles. However, I have to alert you to two things that you really shouldn't do -- one of them very serious indeed. The very serious one is your attempt to move Destiny Angel to Destiny Angel (Captain Scarlet) by manually copying the information from one to the other. This isn't the proper way to do a page move, because then the history of who helped create the page is still stuck with the old page and missing from the new page. A logged-in user should see a tab in the same row as the "edit this page" button marked "move", and this is the way to move pages -- the page is moved along with all its history to the new title, and the old title automatically becomes a redirect. However... in the case of Destiny Angel, it actually shouldn't have been moved at all. It's perfectly understandable that you might see Captain Black (Captain Scarlet) and think that all Captain Scarlet character articles should have titles in that format. However, article titles only receive disambiguations (the parts in parentheses) when the title would otherwise conflict with something else. There's a character named "Captain Black" from a completely different work, so Captain Black from Captain Scarlet is Captain Black (Captain Scarlet), but since there's no other character named "Destiny Angel", her article should just be Destiny Angel. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fish is a Presbyterian, no doubt

Okay, I'll do my best to get the article back, it was on his own site, where he was discussing about football: he supports a traditionally Catholic club (Hibernian F.C.) though having been raised as a Protestant, and so he clearly explains he was often in trouble with his fellow Protestant mates because of this. Now, Protestants in Scotland are Presbyterians, one and one makes two, and so no doubt about it. I'll get that document back or ask Fish directly and post it here, right? Gianmaria Framarin 20:33 14 June 2006

Scarlet

reading your recent edits, I feel compelled to make 2 comments. The "Mysteron city" on Mars is how it is referred to in the show, and was referred to in the semi-canon TV Century 21. To the best of my recall it was the Crater 101 site which was described as a Mysteron "installation"

Granted Conrad is now shown mangled -- the MEV is blown to smithereens, however, and given that he later exhibits powers of teleportation, hypnosis and telepathy, not normal humnan attributes, and given that he registers on X-Rays and Mysteron detectors just as do other "regular" Mysteronised people (including Scarlet) I think it's a safe bet that he was Mysteronised rather than turned.

I am also almost sure, from the pilot episode, that a case could be made for Scarlet being at least a senior agent, because Brown is sexpressly given charge of the escort of the World president, which would imply to me that, otherwise, Scarlet would have been the assigned mission commander, presumably because of some kind of seniority. We do "know" that Conrad was the senior captain, which was why he was sent to Mars. Simon Cursitor

Frankly, i resent your attitude. Had I re-edited your work, and you had felt so strongly, I could perhaps understand such venom. As I merely commented ....

Given that, according to this week's UK Sunday newspapers, the paedia is, in any event, to be cl;osed to editing for a period, I shall not take this further. Please do not post a reply to my talk page -- I am not interested in exchanging abuse Simon Cursitor

Read what's written right under the Presbyterian page...

Didn't you do it, man? I don't think you did, otherwise you would have seen there is written IN ITALICS that people mentioned under that category IS NOT MEANT TO PROFESS THIS RELIGION NOWADAYS, though being born and raised as a Presbyterian...I thought it was clear.

Secondly: I'm not going to ask Fish directly, though I can't see what's wrong in quoting HIS answer to my questions. I mean, what's more evident than that? Well, I don't mean to do this, simply because somewhere on his site Fish ONCE said he had grown up as a Presbyterian, and I'll go looking into the site's archive and get that quote no matter what, okay?

I don't mean to be rude, but sometimes you users really act so blindly...Gianmaria Framarin 0:52 17 June 2006

Anderson template

Hi, I've added the Gerry Anderson template, as well as the company logo. I've done a similar thing for Century 21 Productions. However, one question has arisen - I'm a little confused as to why Thunderbirds is credited as being made by AP films in the programme's end credits when it was apparently already called Century 21 according to that article. Can you shed any light on this? Bob 16:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Thunderbirds movies were made by Century 21, the TV series by APF. The name change came about immediately following the end of production and first screening of Thunderbirds, which is what the article says (based on GA's bio). Cain Mosni 13:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that was the case. What led me to ask is this paragraph on the Century 21 Productions page;

APF was purchased in 1962 by Lew Grade, the owner of ATV, and in 1964 the company name was changed to Century 21 Productions. However, the children's Supermarionation series Thunderbirds (1964-66) was still credited as AP Films (Gerry Anderson Productions for series two).

I slightly altered it yesterday because I was sure Thunderbirds was made as AP films, but I assume the dates of purchase, etc are still incorrect. I'm afraid I don't have that GA biography - would you be able to correct it, please? By the way, I agree that it is probably a good idea to merge the articles, considering they are almost the same company. I would say that the Century 21 Productions would be the best title to keep, just because it has the cooler name and logo, and is probably the name everybody remembers. Bob 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not almost. They are the same company. It was simply renamed to align it with the merchandising brand. To be honest, I don't see much mileage in correcting the Century 21 article as is. Better to consolidate the two articles and then get the facts straight once over. Pointless duplication of effort, otherwise. Cain Mosni 23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Righto, I've added most of the relevant information from Century 21 into the AP films page, plus the picture. Bob 15:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletes (Bexhill prank)

Happy to help - please let me know if you get stuck again. BlueValour 02:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, go to WP:CSD for the criteria - it is General criteria no. 4 (G4 in the trade jargon!). Then go to Wikipedia:Speedy deletions Section 2-Using this page for the tag. BlueValour 03:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit to Alan Parsons

Things to read:

• [1] (so that you can see that article contained copyrighted text)
• Wikipedia:Copyright policy (so that you know what to do in such cases)
• Wikipedia:Vandalism (so that you don't mix vandalism and policy enforcement)

Conscious 05:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. It's just that I've seen the "copyright violation" misused as a cover for vandalism, and without reference to the infringed source, who's to know? Cain Mosni 13:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Blade Runner

The eye doesn't provide sufficient weight either way... as was intended by Ridley when he did indeed intentionally put a little glow in Deckard's eye, once, he made it iffy and ambiguous. Furthermore its the kind of minutia only BR fans could/would notice and debate in the first place. As such I cannot see it as appropriate for the main article, which is (ideally) geared to a general audience who want an overview.

For a while I had half a mind to remove the Deckard section entirely (as the Deck debate was relagated to a seperate article upon the suggestion of an editor the entire subject matters little to the casual watcher/reader), but this brief summary does the trick, so long as it remains brief and doesn't conclude one or the other is "correct".

Adding eye glow biases the section to Deck-a-rep, so a counterpoint would need to be added, then again for another point, so on and so forth until the section becomes debate central again. Something to be avoided on a Featured Article. So even if the eye glow was really relevant, it shouldn't go on Blade Runner. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That was my first thought too when it was added, remove it entirely. But it keeps popping up from new/anon editors trying to improve the article; so its probably best that it stays. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)