User talk:Josiah Rowe/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

ITN

Your second version is better, and I should have done the same to give the context. --Stephen 23:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please return to WikProject Media franchises

Dear Josiah Rowe...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who Prom Photos

Sorry for not coming back onto this subject. I don't have Flickr, but I do have all of my best photos on Facebook. Click on http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=139297&l=dc02a&id=533110787 and http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=139305&l=46b8d&id=533110787 to see them. Feel free to use them, but please could you credit me as the photographer. Hope it helps! - Tenthdoctor (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Redrumracer

Josiah,

On reflection, it's pretty bad form for me to criticize an admin action you took [1], and at the same time, modify a different admin action you took on someone else without talking to you first.

I have blocked user:Redrumracer indef, as a blatant POV-pushing sleeper sock who's only purpose was to get autoconfirmed, and edit war on a semi-protected article. However, since he hasn't edited anything since your 3 hour block of him expired, it occurs to me now that this could appear to be "overruling" your block. If so, I should have checked in with you first. So, first, I apologize, and second, if you have any concern about my block of Redrumracer, please let me know. --barneca (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: 3RR

umm... thanks. No worries man. Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Today's main page

Hiya. I was looking at the mathematics for the points for Doctor Who missing episodes: it was promoted in 2005 -- 2 points. Last similar article (The Quatermass Experiment) was featured over 3 months ago -- 1 point. I'm not sure how it goes with the relevant date thing -- 1 point for the date relevant to the topic, but then it also says "Decennary anniversary (10-year multiples): 2 points". Does this mean that because it's the 45-year anniversay, it gets 2 points for every 10 years? That would make 8. So the total is either 4 points or 12 points!

If I did nominate Degrassi: The Next Generation for 5 October it would have 2 points, 1 for date relevance and one because it's my first TFA. You said that if it was accepted then the Dr Who article would end up with 0 points, but I don't think that's true because 23 November is more than one month after 5 October. It wouldn't be given any negative points so I think it would only lose 1 point.

If my maths is wrong, then let me know and I won't put D:TNG forward. If I did calculate it right, I might (still only "might" ) go ahead and nominate it. I think even with 3 points Doctor Who missing episodes still has a good chance of appearing on the main page.

Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right — I was miscalculating the points. I think that without Degrassi: The Next Generation, Doctor Who missing episodes would get 4 points (a 45-year anniversary doesn't count as a decennary) and with it running on Oct. 3 it gets 3 points. That's not too bad, and I don't feel right standing in the way of you nominating Degrassi if you want to. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

X-Files

Thanks for chiming in on the pilot naming standards RFC. As far as X-Files, from the typed transcript, it looks like it's called "The X-Files, pilot episode". A photo of the original copy at the Smithsonian also shows the same title across the top: [2]. I don't think "pilot episode" is the actual name of the pilot, it's just what it is...the pilot... :) You got me wondering now if Encounter at Farpoint was an actual pilot that they put together to sell the show, or if it's just the first episode of an already sold first season. I'm not even sure that it matters, although the industry seems pretty clear on what a pilot is, the general public seems to think any first episode is a pilot. Have to look into that more. Dreadstar † 05:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

List of people who died before the age of 30

It appears obvious now that the page List of people who died before the age of 30 is headed to deletion. I support its deletion myself. But this has given me an idea. Do you think it would make sense to have a set of categories called "Age x deaths," all in a parent category called "Deaths by age?" That seems like a better idea. This way, there would be no worry where to draw the line as to what age is "significant" as an age of death, and all ages people live to can possibly be included. There would be no need for one person to create all these categories in one day - they could be built gradually over time. We already have categories like 1949 deaths. Why can't we do the same with age? I would like some input. Sebwite (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know, I have started creating a series of categories Category:Deaths at age x, which can be found in Category:Deaths by age. These categories are far from complete and are still being built. Along with the category, I started a policy page titled Wikipedia:Death by age. You may be interested in giving your input on the new categories at Wikipedia talk:Death by age. Sebwite (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing

I was in the middle of moving Douglas County Courthouse, but by the time I got to the disambiguation page you had already moved it. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, this is confusing, i commented in the identical discussion happening on Remember the dot's talk page. Please continue there, not here, okay? doncram (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing -- not finished

see my followup at User talk:Remember the dot. doncram (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Static Avenue needs to be kept safe.

Dear Josiah,

I am writing to inform you that Twinzor keeps on deletng my page on the new band Static Avenue. They have a really good history and you should help me to allow them. Can you please protect the page please.

Ratzo--Ratzo (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Static Avenue isn't just a student band!

I know what you are trying to say but they are students who are playing around the place. please Josiah, give them a chance. You must see their website on [3]. It ROCKS!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratzo (talk • contribs) 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

hehe you don't need to worry your self about him now I got him blocked ;)

Alexnia (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 18:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: GA Reviews

I usually just pick at random, making sure to stay away from freshly nominated articles. Only exception to that rule is the Frog cake article, which I thought was really cute and had to review it. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also waiting for the article I worked on, No Jacket Required, to be reviewed. You just have to be patient. On an older account, I once had to wait a month and a half! It started to get into "This is ridiculous!" territory! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Review

Hey Josiah, if you come across some free time, perhaps you'll stop over at my editor review. Thanks, Grsz^talk 16:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Akhtar Hameed Khan on TFA?

Many thanks Josiah. I'd really like to put it up for mainpage contents but the nomination page is already full! Though I can see that AHK scores higher than any of the existing nominations. Thanks for your help in this. --IslesCape^Talk 11:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support in bringing the article to the Mainpage. --IslesCape^Talk 10:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hearthrob

I agree completely. I vaguely remember it was red linked on numerous articles, if I remember correctly it was about the reception of the film and the subsequent popularity of an actor with women. Definate redirect to wiktionary is appropriate but I ought to have been told about the deletion anyway The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agatha Christie's Poirot

Please see my comments at talk regarding the inclusion of the info you re-instated. I'd be interested how you believe that an actor appearing more than once as different characters is notable, and how we can say certain actors went to achieve "noteriety" without being POV.--UpDown (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit J. I think it is clear that it is not POV from their biographies but agree that it ios a bad word to use attained "a significant degree of prominence in their careers". That is a minor wording issue.

As for the diffierent actors. I do not believe i reference that it is unusual. That is a negative which is hard to prove. If you can prove its common (which is more than name 6) then I'll agree its not significant. You havent done that (I'm not saying it never happens,. its just significvant when it does). I do not believe what I have written is controversial and therefore over referencing is ridiculous. Cheers, guys. --Grakirby (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

response

I unblocked him, and will let him know that the block was a mistake. You should possibly discuss this with the people who warned him also. I know nothing about Russian and Polish cars, so I assumed they were spamming and didn't realize that they may be trying to add references. Would you be willing to be the one to discuss his editing with him? Academic Challenger (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I also know nothing about Russian and Polish cars — I've just got enough command of Russian to see that the links were relevant to the subject. I'll be happy to talk to the user. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Deaths by age

Category:Deaths by age and it's sub-categories have been nominated for deletion. Having previously expressed an opinion on this category, if you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who Prom

I've passed Doctor Who Prom. Thanks for your hard work and quick response to my review concerns: I've enjoyed working through this article with you. All the best, Gwinva (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown upon Josiah Rowe for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Doctor Who Prom - Brilliant!. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects revisited

Hello, Josiah Rowe. You have new messages at Edokter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Redirects

I was not aware of that (I took the page off my watchlist). Thank you for letting me know. I have let my 2 cents about the situation there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the discussion before, but I did notice your edit to the project page about the redirects. Being reminded of that arbcom case I couldn't help but laugh a little bit to myself in a "oh yeah, that whole thing" kind of way. -- Ned Scott 03:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Jack Harkness (disambiguation)

Sorry to revert, but even though I am a big Torchwood fan, I fail to see why it needs to be in the DAB's lead section. Disambiguation pages should not have leads to begin with, unless the term is unseperable from the subject, which is not the case here. Jack Harkness (the character) does not deserve this kind of emphasis. And as the page is only linked from DAB notes, and not likey to return as a seacrh, each subject should be listed on it's own merit. At the very least, try and keep it out of the lead; it really doesn't belong there. — Edokter • Talk • 23:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Move of Doctor Who monster list

Hi, Jc37. I see that you moved List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens to List of creatures and aliens in Doctor Who. Was there discussion about this somewhere? I don't necessarily object to the move, but I think it would be good if you explained your reasoning for the move. I've started a discussion on the talk page. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, I've responded there. - jc37 16:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There are slots open at TFAR for Doctor Who. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, good point—I am actually one of the people who have complained about that. Since it is a four-pointer, it can wait (unless The Simpsons surges in support votes). –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Section length, Book titles, et al.

Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, and what constitutes “fannishness”? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP inclusion query

Hi there. Back earlier in the year, you removed a comment from Shailagh Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - would you mind dropping by and leaving a comment on the talkpage about it? I seem to have found myself arguing with someone over whether or not it ought to be included (it got re-inserted several times) and you're about the only registered editor I can see who's touched it... Shimgray | talk | 09:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit War on Granny Obama

Respectfully, no way are you a neutral party on this editing view and ought to be admit a bias towards it and not involve yourself until another admin comes in. Boris Badinov44 (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Links to newspapers in refs

Hi, Dispenser. When you were running Doctor Who missing episodes through your dead links bot, I see that you also removed some internal links to media sources in the references (e.g. changing "The Guardian" to "Guardian"). Is that standard usage? I had thought that it was considered informative to readers who might not be familiar with a given media source to link to our page on it. I don't much care about the use of the article ("The"), but why delink? Just curious. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I look at it as improving the signal to noise ratio to both the page and backlinks. WP:OVERLINK seems to support this. The software will only unlink from an internal list of common publishers. You may wish to comment on the barrowing of functionality at a bot request while I continue to develop the script. — Dispenser 18:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Image vandalism of Image:BarackMom.JPG

Don't threaten me as that is not vandalism. What is wrong with a nude photo of Barack's mom? Omegacommand (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so many possible responses... but since user has been indefinitely blocked, no need to choose. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

TFA/R

Would I be allowed to relist PlayStation 3 for November 17 if a slot opens up? That day would be the 2nd anniversary of it's US launch so it would (I think) get the same amount of points. I wasn't thinking of Veteran's Day when I nominated it for Nov 11... Anyway, I'm not too familiar with the procedure there, but I would like to see the article on the Main Page at some point soon. (I worked damn hard on that article... ;) ) Thingg^⊕⊗ 04:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind that.... I just saw the legend of Zelda article... Oh well, March (Euro launch) isn't too far off I guess... :( Thingg^⊕⊗ 04:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)