User talk:Litefantastic/2004

Södermanland Redux

Hi. Hope I wasn't too blunt on VfD about the Swedish geographical entry you listed for deletion and then cut and pasted. It's a learning experience for us all! Andrewa 20:06, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rainbow

You recently nominated Rainbow as a featured article candidate. Rainbow is already a featured article, and I have removed your nomination. I just wanted to make sure you knew why. →Raul654 13:08, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks. -Litefantastic 00:48, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Fiction of World War I

Please see my question on the talk page. Rmhermen 14:17, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

• Check. -Litefantastic 23:10, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Cthulhu Mythos References

Hey, no problem. I felt I had to add something as soon as I saw that article. Anyway, there are still some things that should be done about it. There is only one page linking to that article, which means people will hardly find it. There must be more references to it, or the article could eventually die. Maybe editing other articles that are somewhat related to the Cthulhu Mythos and adding a link to the references page could be a good idea. I say the H. P. Lovecraft article should link to it as well.

I was thinking, maybe adding that article to Pages needing attention could be a good idea. More people would see it and more people would feel like adding content. What do you think?

Mackeriv 13:12, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Go for it. -Litefantastic 23:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Uploaded images

Please put some copyright information on the images you upload, even if you just claim fair use without saying why, else they take up people's time trying to figure out whether it should be deleted or not. Cheers, Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

• • Sorry about that. I'll go fix it; I just couldn't find the thing that let me explain (C) information. I'll look again. -Litefantastic 18:26, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Category:Archive of fictional things

Isn't this category redundant with the more intuitively-named Category:Fictional? -Sean Curtin 05:02, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I didn't know there was such a thing. -Litefantastic 16:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Herbert/Hector Munro

Hi. Thanks for your note. Since different Internet sites didn't agree on the name, I checked the print Encyclopedia Brittanica. The name is Hector Hugh Munro.

I made the Front Page!

My article on Bangsian Fantasy made the Front Page!

From Wikipedia's newest articles:

...that the United Kingdom was the first country to offer its citizens a postal savings system?
...that Antarctica's Lemaire Channel is such a popular tourist destination that it's nicknamed Kodak Gap?
...that the literary genre known as Bangsian fantasy sets its action wholly or partially in Hell?
...that the word ecology was coined by Ellen Swallow Richards, the first woman admitted to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology?

-Litefantastic 16:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Listings on Peer review

Hi, I've noticed you do a lot of good work, but two listings you've made on peer review are innapropriate. That page has way too many listings and each does not get the proper attention because so many listings that should be elsewhere. PR is for articles mostly written that have a chance of beeing featured. Lists can never be featured because by definition they are not prose. If you would like to request help with expansion please list them there. I didn't want to move your listings without a note here at least. Thanks - Taxman 04:20, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hurricade

Please tell me Hurricade was intended as a joke. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not a joke. I don't do jokes. It is however, not really a word. Not yet.

I confess that I have a tendancy to abuse the Wikipedia in that I will often invent words. Guilty as charged.

I know that there is a rule against this, but I've found a loophole: if the article lasts long enough, it will actuall enter popular jargon. I cite amerime, which was written up three times; once by me; twice by others. I don't use sock puppet user IDs. This is really the work of other people who use the word. Amerime is here to stay.

And, you must admit, 'hurricade' is rather catchy.

-Litefantastic 02:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VfD it is then. I was hoping you'd say "yes, it's a joke" so I could delete it without wasting everyone's time. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You have no sense of adventure. However, I do see your point and, all joking aside, it's not like I do this to annoy people. I just like to fiddle with English. Incidentally, what sort of test would I have to undergo to become an administrator? I'm on the top 1000 most productive (or active, anyway) Wikipedians, and I certainly would be willing. -Litefantastic 02:44, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You could start by not putting your personal additions to the language into Wikipedia. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm fighting the urge. I actually turned myself in a couple of times (like on 'ladder-down reaction', which had everyone fooled). -Litefantastic 02:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To become an administrator, nominate yourself or be nominated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. This, of course, is subject to vote. Also, Wikipedia is not the place for your personal linguistic inventions, however witty you may think they are. ---Slowking Man 09:25, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Images

Ran across Image:Revolving door.png through completely different channels. It was actually a very large BMP. I converted it and ran it through OptiPNG. Reduced the file size by 99.4%. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:33, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Sorry. I saved it as a PNG file, but I created it with MS Paint. -.-; -Litefantastic 11:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Star Trek template

The reason I originally reverted was because I didn't see the relevance of having Star Trek XII: So Very Tired under a list of Star Trek television shows and movies. (If it were a list of, say, "anything related to the Star Trek universe", then I wouldn't dispute it.) It's obviously not part of the franchise (neither is Invasion Iowa) and neither of them are even mentioned in the actual Star Trek article, so it seems a little silly to put them in this template. Darkcore 03:47, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not even sure that So Very Tired would be appropriate. This may sound blasphemous to some, but not everyone is familiar with The Simpsons, so putting SVT on there would be rather presumptuous (and potentially confusing). Plus, it's not as though SVT itself was a full-length movie (or full-length episode of The Simpsons); it was just "part of The Simpsons universe" and that's great. But it really doesn't fit in a "Star Trek television show and movie list", to me and I think a lot of Trek fans would probably agree. I'm not really a Trekkie; I guess I'm just a purist.

Besides, if we're going to include SVT or Invasion Iowa on this template, you're almost opening up the floodgates for *any* mention of Star Trek in television/film/pop culture to be listed there, and that's not really the purpose of the template. I always thought that they were supposed to be navigation tools to help people find very closely related articles (i.e., the University of Oxford has a template for all of its colleges, but that template does not include Oxford's many fictional colleges from literature). Darkcore 02:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WP:LCOTW

Dear Litefantastic. I'm sorry for angering you by posting the template here and have now removed it. Please believe me when I say that there was not meant to be any implication that you were in any way obliged to contribute. The idea was that as the LCOTW changed, the template would update and so users could see quickly when articles they were interested in came up. CLearly this should have been made more explicit.

Once again, I apologise and I hope that you will continue to participate in the LCOTW project.

Yours in Wikilove

Filiocht 13:57, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I've actually changed the wording of the template now in the light of your perfectly reasonable points. Filiocht 14:58, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

liked your cleanup of Jackhammer

Just read you clean up of jackhammer. Good tightening; this is the kind of improvements that makes our incremental editing process really work. And thanks for supplying earmuffs for me. WpZurp 23:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks. "I live to serve". -Litefantastic 01:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism comment

Believe me, I didn't "bite the newbie." I simply thought that we might have had a new kind of vandal bot...or a signed-in vandal. I was being nice to the individual who was nice in return. Just my two cents' worth. - Lucky 6.9 20:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• No, you were right, you didn't. My mistake. -Litefantastic 01:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• No prob, bro. Thanks for getting back to me. Much obliged. - Lucky 6.9 01:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Response on my talk page. —No-One Jones ^(m) 19:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The speech bubble image is unprotected. —No-One Jones ^(m) 03:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch!

• Thank you for the barnstar. I really appreciate it. The fun is not over yet, though. There are still more screenshots to come! :-) Josh 06:57, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Featured article path template

Might I suggest that instead of starting another template, you simply modify the existing featured article template? →Raul654 01:57, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Box on front page

The thing was, it extended the box down and added nothing of real value to the page. Why do you want to tell people on the front page the five steps to creating a featured article? If anywhere, that belongs in Wikipedia:Featured Articles or maybe one of the How-To/Peer Review pages, don't you think? The box could definitely have a use, and by unsightly, I meant how it kind of screwed up the flow of the page. Don't take it personally, it's a good idea, just not for the front page. :) --Golbez 01:55, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

COTW

Congratulations, First Indochina War has been voted this week's Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week. Please edit it to help raise it to featured article status.

Collaboration of the Week

League of Nations is the new Collaboration of the Week. Please join in helping make it a feature article.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discworld

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discworld

Spam message: Having noticed you have made some great additions to the Discworld articles I thought you might be interested in this new WikiProject. It's at a very early stage and needs quite a bit of work. violet/riga (t) 21:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)