User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Addshore referal

Heya. Addshore told me to talk to you about being adopted on wiki!! I know you're sick so no rush and i hope you get well soon!! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisior (talk • contribs) 23:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry about the delay. I hope to resume my full editing duties tomorrow (Australia time). I'll get back to you, but I'm sure I could help out. Steve Crossin (contact) 13:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

PR mediation

Your help at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal4 would be appreciated. We've narrowed the differences, but we can't seem to get there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This may be outside of your area, but it's a related side dispute in case you're interested. Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I hope your feeling better. This dispute seems to need more active mediation, if you're up to it. If you're still feeling poorly and need to resign as an informal mediator I'm sure we'd all regret that.

• Heh, I was just writing a comment on the mediation page, saved, and saw this. Touche. Steve Crossin (contact) 19:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Can you please have a word with Francis? I have tried to resolve the issue with transclusion, but he seems to be set in his mind that his personal version of that page is the only way to go. I had enough of these shenanigans and stupidity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Jossi has been edit warring over this page for the last day, first trying to delete it ourtright, then shuffling the sources around in various ways, now creating subpages that delete sources. It's very disruptive and serves no purpose. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• I've added a message here, at the top. Quite frankly, I'm appalled. Edit warring in my userspace? Common courtesy, please. If there's an issue in my userspace, my talk page is the place for it. Will, you previously posted something earlier today, it was a little unclear, sorry I didn't respond. But, really. Edit warring in my userspace is just not on. Steve Crossin (contact) 20:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What has no purpose is the insistence of Francis and Will to keep a talk page as theirs and stubbornly fight any attempts to make that page a communal page that can be improved. They gave tag-teamed against me in their pursuit to WP:POINT for their "proposal". Shame, shame, shame. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)I'm sorry Jossi, but there's not a lot that I can do. I am keeping a closer eye on the pages now, but as you know, a mediator has no power to actually enforce any rules, at least not directly enforce them. I have the pages watchlisted, and I'll keep an eye on the situation, but I don't think there's much more that I can do there. If it's in my userspace, I have a little more control over it, but out of my userspace, there's nothing I really can do. Steve Crossin (contact) 21:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Improvements are welcome, but should they shouldn't be unilateral in the face of opposition. Jossi's first three "improvements" were to blank the page.[1][2][3] He's continued to make major changes despite explicit requests to stop and discuss. He's never given any policy-based justification for his editing. I'd like to add more sources but the situation is now totally screwed-up. And now Jossi is saying that he's abandoning the requirement to assume good faith.[4] This is very disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why did you allow Francis to deleted my additions to the sources page? Why? How can I assume good faith when you turn a blind eye to Francis removal and insistence? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Do the right thing and re-add the material that I added to that page, and move the "summary" to a discussion page, and I amy be able to re-assess if AGF is worth to be extended: Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Blind eye? Heck, I can't follow what you two are doing. I'd appreciate it if you'd both stop moving the pages and rearranging the sources without consensus. And you deleted sources too, so you're in no position to complain about the other guy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Both of you, cool it. I understand this is a contentious topic, but both of you are administrators, and you have both been on Wikipedia for a long time, far longer than I have. I don't believe I'm saying this, but both of you, step away from the computer for half an hour, drink some tea, and come back later when you have both calmed down. Steve Crossin (contact) 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• And I mean it, seriously, step away from the computer. I find that's the best thing to do sometimes, to just step away from the PC, have some tea, or have a chat with Mel. Do whatever relaxes you. Steve Crossin (contact) 22:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. I hear you. I may come online later in the night and fix the complete mess by simply re-adding the material that was deleted, keeping that page exclusively for sources and moving all other stuff to the discussion page. Hope that Will lends a hand as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Hopefully that will work. Will, I hope you can just take a break. Personally, I'm exhausted. Steve Crossin (contact) 22:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• I took a break as asuggested by Steve. I oppose Jossi being the editor to "fix the complete mess" unless that means going back to the material we had yesterday and simply adding to it. His shuffling, sorting, segregating, and deleting of sources and the splitting and moving source pages has been the cause of the complete mess. I object to his unilateral decision that sources need to be split into two separate lists rather than one simple, easy to maintain list. If he wants to re-organize the page he should get a consensus before doing so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I will not split anything. I will leave the material as originally added, add the material that was deleted in the shuffle, re-add the discussion that was segregated to a separate page, and add a table of contents for easier access. I will also delete the pages I created for transclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Done Talk:Prem_Rawat/Lifestyle. Hope you can now help in keeping this as is, and focus on moving forward with proposal discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for cleaning up most of the mess you created. I'm going to simply put the sources back into chronological order so we can stop this mischief. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It is already in chrono order, as per the original. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I double checked and nothing seems missing. Please take a look ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Steve, Jossi's constant attempts at manipulating NPOV into something else are getting ridiculous, I mean honestly. Can you please explain to him how manufacturing the word "pejoratively" is an obvious distortion of what the sources say, he obviously doesn't listen to me or can't understand me. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hello there. I've seen the recent dispute about the Cagan source. I'm pretty sure that everyone in the dispute has my userpage, so I will say this, at least for now. There's no doubt that things in this case are disputed, and sources are among them. The question with the use of sources on Wikipedia almost always is a question of whether the source is reliable, and whether or not the use of the source gives undue weight. Since the start of this case, I haven't seen many of the sources myself, so I haven't really been able to judge the sources. However, I've actually obtained a library copy of Peace is Possible, by Cagan, and I'll be going through it, for now I'd suggest it would be best, for the time being, to work on a different proposal. It seems clear that an agreement on the use of Cagan isn't going to be determine, at least for now. At this point, I'd normally suggest a Request for Comment, however since I took on this case, I've seen just how contentious the Prem Rawat related articles are, and the fact that users are unwilling to become involved in it. As such, I doubt a Request for Comment would be unlikely to get much, if any, outside input. I will think about this and see what I can decide, but I do think that only a compromise will work. In my experience as a mediator, I find that all or nothing, as in, no use of the source or use of it in any way at all, rarely if ever has any success. The first case I mediated, in early March of this year, was a dispute over the use of a source. Compromises were suggested and were refused, and as a result, the mediation was unsuccessful, and as a result, the article is now indefinitely semi-protected, to prevent anonymous edit warring. I really wouldn't like to see this case go the same way, because of a possible unwillingness to compromise. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Steve, since the Cagan book is the only book-length biography of the subject there is no part of his life where it isn't likely to come up. I've suggested following the status quo: leaving in existing uses but not adding any new ones. However this compromise has been rejected or at least ignored. Proposal 7 does not require the use of additional citations from Cagan. If we don't resolve this in some way I don't see how we can continue to edit the topic further. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Status quo has changed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Invite?

What the heck, you've got a link to a contact page but not your talk page (in your signature)? :p Anyways, I'm honored by the invite, but I try not to associate myself with any one WikiProject because as you might have guessed, I like to edit on any type of article no matter what the subject. So I try not to focus on a single topic for too long :) But I will certainly help out where I can! As you can see from my user page, I do a lot of Good Article reviewing, so I hope to see one of yours up at WP:GAN soon ;) Gary King (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you rally people together to build an article to FA. That will get the heart pumping in the WikiProject. And I suggest that the article be Jack Bauer ;) Gary King (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you indent your messages instead of bulleting them? They read like a to-do list or something :p Anyways, I'll help out when I can, but most likely like everyone else it will be when the next season begins :) Gary King (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Yeah I would love to and no worries about the wait. Nisior (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Alright then. I suggest you start by looking over some of the lessons, they are here, and just read through a lesson. Take your time, this is not a race. :). If you have any questions, just ask me here. Steve Crossin (contact) 20:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:IRC

I can't come on IRC again... did you somehow lock your channel or something? :/ -- RyRy (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

TM Tecnomatic spa

Hi Steve! Thanks for speedily deleting TM Tecnomatic on 8 July. (I nominated it for deletion. It was my first use of the AfD facility, and a useful learning experience.)

TM Tecnomatic spa is one title that re-directs to TM Tecnomatic. (There may be others). Whose responsibility is it to delete these re-directs? In this case, it may have been mine. If you are able to delete TM Tecnomatic spa please do so. Alternatively, if you let me know I will work out how to delete it. Best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• The redirect has actually already been deleted ;). It's generally the task of the deleting administrator to delete any redirects to an article that they delete. Not something I can do :). But you can in future tag the redirects with {{db-r1}}. Hope that helps :). Steve Crossin (contact) 06:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please attend to this

... if you could: [5]. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And this: User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic D: Cagan Is it inappropriate to use mediation pages to discuss the topics for mediation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We already discussed at length the need to discuss sources in the context in which they are used. So, I am arguing to continue the discussion on the page we are discussing the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And my argument is that the dispute isn't limited to one context, and is a core dispute in this mediation that long predates any particular proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 8 (DLM lede)

Hi Steve, I believe we are ready to go on Proposal 8, Draft 4. Will you make the edit? Jayen466 00:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to keep my name out of ANI drama

See [6] and read topic #47 (there are two headings the same, so I can't link to the right discussion). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I see. Thank you for letting me know of this. Steve Crossin (contact) 16:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Outing

Contrary to Wiki policy against harassment (Posting another person's personal information is harassment) John Brauns continues to use "Derek" when referring to me. I have removed the references twice and WillBeback once [7] [8][9]and asked Brauns to stop doing it [10][11]. But he continues to do it [12]. Brauns has already threatened to blackmail people on Wiki [13]so this harassment is serious, deliberate and sustained. I expect the admins involved in this discussion Jossi, Will and you to ban Brauns indefinitely, if not permanently.Momento (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Momento: the place to report these type of abuses is at WP:AN/I ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Normally, I would agree, however this has already been discussed and handled appropriately. For the time being, I see no further action needed. Steve Crossin (contact) 21:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • He should be asked to stop. Period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• He was asked to stop. There was a discussion about this between administrators, and myself, and it was agreed that he would be given a final warning, and if it happened further, he would be blocked. Steve Crossin (contact) 21:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bypassing consensus building

Please see Talk:Prem_Rawat#Bypassing_mediation_consensus. I propose to move that new article to a sandbox proposal like we are doing with all other materials and articles, and seek consensus about its format and content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, already spotted this. It's a large issue, and it's one I'll have to think over. I resume university today, so my time on Wikipedia won't be as much as it normally is. I'll think it over, but moving such a large article into one proposal does not seem like a good idea to me, at all. Steve Crossin (contact) 21:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That "article" is an unilateral act by one editor, which did not see it fit to ask for feedback, and that bypasses numerous discussions about sources. Clearly an attempt to bypass consensus and force a hand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• The bibliography is the hard work of two editors, not one. If Jossi wants to delete it there are several mechanisms for doing so. However simply deleting a considerable amount of content is inappropriate. A list of works has nothing to do with any previous discussion of sources. I have reverted Jossi's purge of the list. He calls the work of two editors "unilateral", but sees nothing wrong with his own, solo activities. Jossi has also been acting disruptively on talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle. Mediators aren't responsible for behavior, but this can't continue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just my opinion: I think that the creation of the article was done within a good faith interpretation of the agreement. It is certainly easy to understand that a rational person can consider creating a bibliographical article well outside an agreement to avoid "controversial changes without consensus". However, I do think the creation of the bibliography article is misguided. It's almost a sure bet that creating new articles will generate attention and drama in such a contentious area of the wiki. It also is of an article type (bibliographies) that have a long history of being considered unsuitable as separate articles for Wikipedia. Annotated bibliographies on non-controversial topics with strong sourcing have done somewhat better, surviving between one-third and one-half of the time. A bibliography in a contentious topic area is almost assuredly a solid candidate for deletion, based on precedent and sense. I would advise both sides to step back and take a breath to consider ways that other editors and the topic may be approached more constructively and productively, with a minimum of drama and snark. Vassyana (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 15 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ziegler Polar Expedition, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

You don't waste much time do you? :) I saw that mistake already, and was just about to fix it. --Gatoclass (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nope, I like to keep everyone on their toes ;) Steve Crossin (contact) 10:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

New articles related to Prem Rawat

In case you were not aware, please note that the following articles have recently been created:

• Ex-premie.org
• Bibliography of Prem Rawat and his organizations

--Jayen466 00:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, I was aware of both, but thanks for letting me know. Steve Crossin (contact) 04:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI subpages

Hi Steve. So you know, I moved the "Sidaway" thread back to the main WP:AN/I noticeboard. I left a note under the "WP:RFC" sub-section amounting to as much. A couple other people have commented there, so if there are further concerns, I guess we could hash them out there or elsewhere if necessary. Regards, --Iamunknown 07:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Already spotted it. I thought it would've helped, as the discussion is getting very long, but apparently not. Thanks anyway. Steve Crossin (contact) 07:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I can understand your opinion: after a thread is moved to a subpage, for example, the level of activity on folk's watch lists generally returns to a reasonable level. But at the same time, I've observed it to have negative effects, such as threads going myopic after being moved to a subpage, or threads attracting a less-representative group of folks than if the thread had remained at WP:AN/I. Both are reasonable opinions based on observation, which I guess is why at WT:AN there typically hasn't been much of a consensus. --Iamunknown 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I'm not really concerned. Was just trying to help out. :) Steve Crossin (contact) 07:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. I'm off for the night now (it's past midnight). Cheers! :) --Iamunknown 07:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard subpage

Ohai Steve. I just want to let you know that I am using a version of your noticeboard page. I do some AIV clerking now so I thought that page could be useful. I just wanted to let you know. -- RyRy Public (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks for telling me. Steve Crossin (contact) 09:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Steve, could I talk to you on IRC? Thanks, RyRy (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want me to write it...

Say so :) I'll have a look at it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Triple crown

It gives me great pleasure to bestow this triple crown upon Steve Crossin for superlative content work. Durova^Charge! 19:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your Majesty, here goes. Durova^Charge! 19:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks very much Durova :) Steve Crossin (contact) 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Justin Adams disambiguation

Hello. I've reverted your changes to this page, as it goes against the normal rule to show the article's whole title, so that it can be found easily by the user in future, see: disambiguation. If you feel I've misinterpreted this or there's something I've missed, please revert it, giving your reasons on the page's discussion page. Thanks Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Drafting question

There's a question over the meaning of your instruction on the mediation proposal pages, User should:...Not change the wording of proposals, they should add a new proposal with the changed wording, at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal9 (Media)#Draft 3. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My response here. Steve Crossin (contact) 17:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Importance Scale

It would be best to add one so members know which article is more important, but it's your project so I'll stop. BW21.--BlackWatch21 19:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

SSP & RFCU > SSP2 going slow

Dear Steve Crossin...Since you agreed that the sock puppet process needed an overhaul, I was wondering if you would be somewhat active in making sure that it gets done. Currently, the merging of Suspected sock puppets and Requests for checkuser is going rather slow. I would like to get the templating done soon. To do that the merging needs to be completed first, or at least the proposed process finalized. I ask you to take part in getting this done. You can start by reading SSP2 and then the talk page. I have already written two of the templates, but the rest will take a finalized process to write. Hopefully, you have the time to take part in this. Have a nice day! - LA @ 05:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Page fix

Thanks for fixing my user page. I never thought deleting a bar would get rid of a curly bracket. At one point I narrowed the problem down to a sub template of one of the user boxes. But a solution evaded me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Allison Taylor

That's a good idea you have, we could continue adding things (good references etc) while still keeping it a redirect for now. The FBI characters along with Henry Taylor's pages were previously created too so we can do the same for those. SeanMooney (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, but we will have to think about long term. Many character pages were created in previous seasons, and were merged, or will be merged at a later date. I think its rather likely that Allison Taylor will be a major character, but I'm unsure as to whether Henry Taylor will be. I really think that working on the notability guideline before Exile starts, would be a very wise idea. I think if it takes us a month, at max, 2, to get the 24 MoS to {{guideline}} status, then we'd be ready to go. Thoughts? Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 07:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a good guideline is that every character in the main/regular cast or starring role (as Henry Taylor is) should get their own page while the season is airing. If you look at the main casts for previous seasons they've almost always became major characters (with two exceptions - Sandra Palmer and Sarah Gavin). And usually half of the regular cast are returning actors who already have character pages (in s7's case - bill, chloe, jack, tony, etc), so it'd only be a handful of new pages. After the season ends or if something happens to their character (death, end of storyline arc, etc) we can then look at merging it. Recurring and guest stars of course we'd be a lot more careful with creating pages for. SeanMooney (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think thats a good idea, but the danger I see in the coming months with this would be a large increase in plot information. We don't want this sort of thing happening. I think that a MoS would help with this problem, however it's still inevitable to happen. 24 Fans do write a lot of plot info, I've seen it in the past 2 years or so, and most of our merged articles have been mostly, if not all, plot summaries, most in minute detail. It's something that the project will need to agree on, and work towards keeping down. I also think that a Reference task force should keep tabs on anything that we can use in articles. I think the problem with articles in the past has been that editors never bothered about adding real world information into the article, and as such, some articles that probably would be notable, were merged, because no references were added at the time that the character was notable. This is something that I hope to overcome this year, setting a new standard in our articles from here on in. I think that by having our articles at a very high quality, say, getting Tony Almeida, Bill Buchanan, Chloe, Michelle, David Palmer, Charles Logan, and so on, to at least a B class level, hopefully GA, it would set a new benchmark that newer editors try to achieve. If we can say, "look at these articles, this is the sort of article we are aiming for", it could help quite a bit. But it's not something we can do alone. I think we'll need help to do this, but it's possible :). Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 08:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Having a guideline will definitely be useful, but truthfully I don't expect many people to follow it, or more likely, they won't even be aware of it. I'm sure the members of 24 wikiproject will, but as you said there'll be a lot of more casual/newer editors who are just fans of the showing that won't be familiar with things (or ignore it). Something that might help in this case is adding comments to the current season section (such as <!--This is NOT an episode guide-->). SeanMooney (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, indeed, something like <!-- this is not an episode guide, please see WP:MOS24 for guidelines --> might help. One more thing. Do you know if there are any other new articles created? I have everything on the 24 watchlist on my watchlist as well, but newer articles I don't have any for. Perhaps we should create the new articles, just as redirects, at least for now, that way we can keep an eye on the articles. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 09:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The pages I know of are Janis Gold, Sean Hillinger, Renee Walker, Henry Taylor (24 character), Gabriel Schecter, Latham (24 character). Larry Moss was also created but that's been replaced and now has a disambiguation link instead. SeanMooney (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, great. I'll add them to the public watchlist, and mine. Just note, in future, if there are any more articles, add them to the article watchlist. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 10:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm from the United States (EST time zone) but I'm usually on during night time (usually anywhere between 6PM to 7AM). SeanMooney (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, thats great. What do you think of this? I'm putting in the barebones for all the articles for season 7, and redirecting them. I'm also adding {{24 Wikiproject|class=Redirect}} to their talk pages, thereby adding them to the project's assessment scheme, and to our article list. But I think that adding a frame to an article is probably the best way to do things for now, and info can be added gradually until it warrants it's own article. If you want a copy of the 24 watchlist, I can give it to you. Helps quite a lot to keep an eye on the articles and as a co-ordinator, you should probably keep an eye on it too :) Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 10:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How does the watch list thing work? I wasn't aware you could share those or anything. Either way I already have most 24 related pages on my watch list (all of the main characters, seasons, etc) it's just some of the miscellaneous stuff like the books/soundtrack pages that I don't. As for Janis Gold, that looks good - I've done something similar on the Renee Walker page too, and I'll be expanding it a bit more. Glad we are doing this because there are some good references and character information that would probably get lost if the pages were created next year (a problem that many 24 character pages have suffered from in the past). SeanMooney (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel Schecter is listed on List_of_24_characters#Shadowy_Figures, I removed him from the cast list on the season 7 page because I'm 99.9% sure he's just a guest star (one time appearance/minor character etc). It comes from TVSquad rumor and he can be seen in the season 7 trailer (he's the one being "tortured"). And yes, Latham would be Michael Latham. Chris Bulgin created that page I believe before the characters first name was revaled - it should probably either be renamed or deleted. SeanMooney (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it's a public watchlist, you add links to pages all onto one page, then, input that page at Special:RecentChangesLinked. I think that getting a head start this season and having a style guideline will definitely be to our benefit, but we still have a lot of work to do with the old articles. Let's not forget those :) The Latham (24 character) redirect is already deleted, and created at Michael Latham (24 character). (we should write up some naming conventions shouldnt we?) :). I'll get the redirect for Gabriel Schecter deleted now. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 11:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, while we're filling out these character pages: I have the cast images for Janis Gold, Allison Taylor, Henry Taylor, Sean Hillinger, Larry Moss, Renee Walker, etc which were recently (officially) released by FOX [14]. They're all in huge 2600x3900 resolution (so obviously they'd be downscaled first), but would it be okay to upload them now or should I wait till later? SeanMooney (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• They're promo images, right? Could you give me direct links to the actual images? (To all the ones you can find.) I'm having trouble finding them :/ Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 12:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they are official promo images released by FOX: http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z0z7z2z5 . I can't link you directly to the actual images because it requires an account, but they can all be found here: http://spoilertv-24.blogspot.com/2008/07/season-7-cast-promotional-photos.html (click the thumbnails for the high-res, they are about 4 megabytes each in size). Also, the logo for 24: Exile can be found there too. I'll be back in a few hours so I'll leave things up to you to make a decision. SeanMooney (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've got the images, I think we can add them to the redirected articles, as they technically still are in the articles, but I'd like standard naming conventions to be used, for example, I've uploaded the Allison Taylor images as Image:Allison Taylor.jpg. 250x375 pixels is great. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 12:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I see, very nice work on all the image stuff - I think you forgot Sean Hillinger though. The Allison Taylor page is coming along very nicely so far. SeanMooney (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Gah, I knew I forgot something :). I'll get onto that now. Thanks for pointing that out. I think I'll start on the MoS later today, feel free to edit it as I go :). Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 04:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, that image is  Done. I've saved the one of of Bob Gunton, but I think we should wait until there's more info on him before we consider splitting him from the Minor characters page. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 04:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, probably a good idea to wait on Guntons image for now. Though I'm gonna take a shot at improving Ethan Kanin's older [pre-merged] page, while still keeping it as a redirect for now. Also we should probably create one for Jonas Hodges (Jon Voight's character) as he seems to factor heavily into the plot and there's quite a bit of production/casting info out there already (as well as a promo pic). SeanMooney (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, could you show me some of these sources? So, does he appear to be a major villan? I'd be happy to start a redirected article, but I'd like to take a look at it myself, if thats OK. We could always add the image then, but that old article was quite poor. What do you think of this edit, by the way? It's a plot addition of +900, I think it's a little too much, but I'd like to know your take on it. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 06:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I've changed my mind on the Ethan Kanin stuff for now, I simply can't find much real world information on that character. Jonas Hodges should definitely be created though IMO, as it seems like he's the main villain (and he's in both Exile and S7). Here are a few sources regarding his character:

1. "Voight will play the uber-nemesis of Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland), who is pulling the strings behind next season's terrorist threat." [15]
2. "smooth, sarcastic corporate villain", and “I looked for a model that I could enjoy…that made me smile. I finally decided he’s a witty fellow, sarcastic perhaps. He’s intimidating because he plays it light, but he’s got a sharp barb – his tongue can hurt you. He’s got a sense of humor, but boy, he’s dangerous.” [16]
3. video interview with Jon Cassar, says they talked with voight before in other seasons [17]
4. “head of a Blackwater-like conspiracy” [18] and [19]

SeanMooney (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• You've got me convinced :). Work your magic :) (if you want to). I'll try help out too :). Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 08:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Erm, would you be able to get the original of this image, scale it to 250 × 375px, and upload it?. I can't find the original image, and our standard image size is 250x375px. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 08:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'll start filling out the page a bit too. SeanMooney (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)