User talk:Paxomen/December 2005-February 2006

Fair use, etc

Paxomen - there is a little bit on confusion right now regarding the application of images with respect to policy and copyright. Please continue to do your best, read the relevent pages, and not worry too much. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IFD Notifications

Image:Buffyverse A-Z.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Buffyverse A-Z.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:Buffyverse (world).JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Buffyverse (world).JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Dave 18:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidrama at AfD

and IfD, apparently.

I don't have a grudge against you. I just have felt that a lot of contributions you've made don't add anything to the encyclopedia and (in the cases of these three submissions) do a lot to lower the quality of the encyclopedia, as well as violate copyright. Don't take it personally. It's not meant personally. You really just need to spend more time thinking about what belongs and what doesn't, as well as what's appropriate for an encyclopedia versus what's appropriate for a fansite. Dave 20:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Wikiquette

Please do not delete text in AfD debates, even if its your own. This is generally considered vandalism. Use a strikeout if you have changed your mind. More info about how the deletion process works is at Guide to deletion. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just regular Wikiquette

Please do not delete text on talk pages. This is where other users communicate with you. You should archive instead of simply deleting text. See Wikipedia:Talk_page#Can_I_do_whatever_I_want_to_my_own_user_talk_page.3F for the full user talk page guidelines.

It looks like maybe that big section at the top of your talk page would serve you better on your user page. Good luck!Dave

Buffyverse List

Thanks for informing me about that Paxomen. :) I haven't been very active on Wikipedia lately, just checking my watchlist really, too busy with exams and whatnot. But I still keep an interest in the Buffy Wikiproject, and am going to be continuing with that list of Angel episodes soon. I cast my vote (Keep, of course :)). Anyway, thanks. --Cooksey 15:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Buffy at Whedonesque.com

Thanks for the mention at Whedonesque.com! - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 14:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merging of characters you're been doing at is great, and makes such articles are less vulnerable to people who moan about WP:FICT. Keep up the good work -- Paxomen 14:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) That was my thinking exactly; plus, it just looks nicer. You seem to know the extended 'verse better than anyone else, so anything you've got to add to the merged articles would be super. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 17:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novel articles

I tagged the articles that you've been creating today with "wikify" and "copyedit", but I see that you've removed the tags. As you'll see if you look at other Wikipedia articles, or if you follow the links provided (especially Wikipedia:Guide to layout), that your articles don't conform to Wikipedia style at all (they look, in fact, more like pages from a publisher's catalogue). They need to be provided with proper summaries, with information provided in prose form, and the style adapted to Wikipedia/encyclopaedia standards of English. If and when I find time I'll try to help, but there are a lot of them. --Phronima 15:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tags mean that the articles show up in relevant categories, and editors who devote themselves to such things will see them and come and do some of the work. It's not the length of the descriptions, though the style sometimes needs bringing into line with Wikipedia. The big issue is the formatting and presentation of the information (and headings), the absence of summaries in Wikipedia style, and so on. --Phronima 16:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Spike & Dru- Pretty Maids All in a Row.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Spike & Dru- Pretty Maids All in a Row.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

It seems like the {{Book_cover}} tag and a fair use rational on the image description page would be the most useful thing you could do here. Regards, Dethomas 23:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:CheNuevara#Canon

Pax: Please know that I do really appreciate the hard work that you've been putting into the articles. Furthermore, I'm impressed with the volume of work you've done in the amount of time you've done it in.

That being said, allow me to address the concerns you raised in your message to me:

The sum total of an article's edit history and it's talk page are, 9 times out of 10, a very good indicator of its traffic. The Buffyverse canonical issues has yet to undergo the inevitable evolution that a trafficked article undergoes. Not exactly a scientific analysis, but a sure one. My decision to put it on the project page was an effort to reach all our project members immediately; I'm personally of the opinion that our project is large enough to spread any particular issue throughout all relevant articles relatively quickly. I felt a 'sticky' topic on our page would lead to a faster spread of the information. But I felt it especially appropriate since the arguments seemed to be primarily between project members. (With, of course, the exception of Lil_Flip and Ooks, who are as good as un-contactable anyway.)

This was not a criticism of the Bverse canon article. Just an observation.

Bottom line was, I wanted to centralize the discussion. The immediate thing that occurred to me was to organize the discussion at our 'hq'. Of course, I left the other discussions where they were on the talk pages, I simply left a note at every place.

In response to the whether it is "directed at you" ... If you say so. Honestly, I don't really pay all that much attention to who comments on what. My frustration (which I admit to) was not with you, but rather with the whole business as a whole. (For example, I know that you are not the only one who used the Catholicism / viewpoint argument, but I do not remember who the other user was.)

I understood your comparison, although I did not agree with it: it's a comparison of a real-life agenda to a Wiki-agenda. Everything on Wiki is a judgement call -- the POV rule exists to guide how we deal with outside agendas. If the POV applied to inside agendas, then no articles would ever be allowed on Wiki. But that's not the real problem -- the real problem is the danger that other people will not understand the argument. It's playing with fire.

The "remove non-canon information" issue was, in reality, a fantastic misunderstanding. I created the project solely to deal with the show because I didn't imagine there would be enough interest in the expanded 'verse to create and maintain articles on it. The term "canon" as I used it in the explicative information was as compares to "fanon" and "personal canon". (My explanation that is in the talk archive under "Opening Notes".) That business clearly needed to be kept out. This is the reason I chose the term "objective canon". Had I anticipated extended 'verse work, I would have used different terminology to talk about it.

Sorry if that caused you problems -- it wasn't intended to. But it was intended to keep out unverifiable information.

I have watched the extended 'verse battle in other fields. Ultimately, it all comes down to a question of notability and verifiability. I am personally of the opinion that as long as something is verifiable, its notability is not an issue. Not all Wikipedians think this way, as you pointed out. I do not have and never have had an objection to the work you're doing, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way.

I like the way you've been handling extended 'verse information. (I did credit you with that in my long rant.) And I did address the fact that this information is acceptable, as long as it is presented as what it is -- which you've been doing. That makes it verifiable. But unsourced information has a way of creeping in. There is no episode of BtVS that I have not seen more than once; there are only a handful of Angel episodes I haven't seen. So when information I don't recognize pops up without a verifiable source, I treat it as suspect.

I agree with your call to build a complete Buffyverse compendium here, and I urge you to keep doing what you're doing. My mistake was not anticipating an interest in it; I personally know little to nothing about the extended 'verse and am therefore completely unqualified to write about it.

I'm sorry if I've caused problems for you in your work. Never meant to.

Peace. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 17:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buffyverse-related topics

Heya, the URL links you changed were URL links to 'revision history' pages. That's because as far as I know that is the only way to link to 'history' pages. I'm sure you didn't mean to change the 'revision history' links to wikilinks to the main articles. Thanks -- Paxomen 17:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paxomem,

I just had another look at my changes, and as far as I can see I've left any 'action' URLs (including revision history URLs) alone. I've only touched things such as http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Senior_Partners, which can be legitimately be turned into [[Senior Partners]].

My script also did things like remove unneeded spaces from [[foo |bar]] (turning it into [[foo|bar]]), which might be what you were seeing.

Or am I missing something? Cheers, Cmdrjameson 18:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, OK I see what happened, in a few places where there should have been a URL link to revision history (e.g. Buffy ep All the way) there was a URL link to the main article, and you wikified the link to the main article. The URL link was wrong in the first place, but I shall sort it out. Thanks for your help cleaning the list. -- Paxomen 18:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

I noticed that you recently moved the above article to Spike (Buffyverse), but you didn't move the talk page as well. I'm curious if this just an oversight, or intentional? Cheers. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 03:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm looking at the histories of the original talk page and the new talk page, and it still all seems to be with the original. I suppose I could just go and do something about it myself, but I don't want to muck anything up for you. :) --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done - I actually had to delete the new talk page before moving the old one, so it was in fact a bit more complicated than I had originally thought. You can double-check me, but I think everything's cleared up now. Carry on! --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 03:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've also done the same thing with Connor (Buffyverse) and Jasmine (Buffyverse) - if anything was left amiss, let me know. Cheers! --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 20:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junk

Nowiki text

FictUni - In the fictional [[Buffyverse]] established by TV series, [[Buffy the Vampire Slayer|''Buffy'']] and [[Angel (TV series)|''Angel'']].

Buff-WB Screenshot from [[Buffy the Vampire Slayer|''Buffy'']]. Produced by [[20th Century Fox]]. Originally aired by [[WB Network]]. Image only used to identify episode/character/place relating to image.

Buff-UPN Screenshot from [[Buffy the Vampire Slayer|''Buffy'']]. Produced by [[20th Century Fox]]. Originally aired by [[UPN]]. Image only used to identify subject in image.

Ang-WB Screenshot from [[Angel (TV series)|''Angel'']]. Produced by [[20th Century Fox]]. Originally aired by [[WB Network]]. Image only used to identify subject in image.

Ang-DH ''[[Angel comics|Angel]]'' comic published by [[Dark Horse Comics]]Image only used to identify comic/character/place relating to image.

Buff-DH ''[[Buffy comics|Buffy]]'' comic published by [[Dark Horse Comics]]. Image only used to identify comic/character/place relating to image.

Ang-IDW ''[[Angel comics|Angel]]'' comic published by [[IDW Publishing]]Image only used to identify comic/character/place relating to image.

Buff/Angel-PBs ''[[Buffy novels|Buffy]] or [[Angel novels|Angel]]'' book published by [[Pocket Books]] (division of [[Simon & Schuster, Inc.]] Image only used to identify book in question.

WikiJunk

Ongoing writing: 1, 2, 3, temp, User:Paxomen/junk, Fin. Progress: Music (B.), B. behind scenes, A. behind scenes

Links

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/ Places of interest: Index, WP:B, WP:B:Talk, Help:Starting a new page, Redirecting things: #REDIRECT ,

edit counter

Discussion

Angel eps=

Thanks for the compliment, I did work rather hard on the episodes. I haven't yet gotten around to doing the rest of the episode, I've been busy with school things etc. But I'm on half term now and I should be able to get around to changing the format on most of the other Angel episode pages. That Project Episode page should be useful, thanks for that. :) I wasn't sure about the screencaps either, but I talked to some more experienced users and they said that it should be ok, as long as I restrict it to 2 or 3 caps it should be fine (the final episode is an exception). --Cooksey 16:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 13% for major edits and 37% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 04:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not a bot, and I'd like to second Mathbot's request. I noticed that you do quite a bit of useful work, often in bulk, on Buffy episode articles, so the lack of edit summaries makes it quite a bit harder to track what's going on with these articles without laboriously diff'ing each change. I do a lot of bulk editing, too, and I know the summaries can be a pain while updating 144 articles quickly. Might I recommend opening a text-editor window with one or more prepared edit summaries that can be easily pasted? I've found that to be very helpful. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old One#Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Just thought I would explain why I restored the content under the aforementioned section. I take your (implicit) point that Old Ones (Buffyverse) is the proper article to go to; that's why I added the {{main|[[Old Ones (Buffyverse)]]}} template. However, I didn't think it was necessary to remove the content. On the other hand, if you believe that the information under this section is redundant, then you might want to copyedit it into a brief summary explaining how the Old Ones relate to the Buffyverse universe; that way, a casual reader can get the gist of what the Buffy the Vampire Slayer Old Ones are about. You undoubtedly know more about this subject than me (which is why I simply reverted the content).
^R'lyehRising 15:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unaired pilot (Buffy episode)

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say there's a new Slayer in town :-) Nice work!

chocolateboy 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx chocodude :) -- Paxomen 11:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Sunnydale High.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sunnydale High.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Stifle 11:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing work

And what a beautiful Buffyverse box! Any idea y the Quotes page isn't on it (not dat i want to detract from its organization!)? Xiner 04:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffverse RPGs

Thanks for your comment earlier. This page had been bugging me as I own a couple of the books myself. Good call on the name, by the way. Once I was finished I was going to ask about either changing the name or creating a separate article for the Angel rpg. Jayunderscorezero 23:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot

Your recent edit of some article was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If you were experimenting, know that everyone really is welcome to contribute, but tests should be done in the sandbox. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. // Tawkerbot2 18:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what happened was the bot though you were entering in the same text again and again, I hadn't thought of the template text being on context and useful which was my mistake. I'm going to program the bot to ignore what triggered your edit, sorry about that and thanks for letting me know, its only thorough notices of bot screwups that I can improve it :) -- Tawker 23:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up and running

Seems like your still up and running

yeah I ended up doing some edits in spite of self-imposed wikibreak (opps), cheers for your barnstar which i moved onto my user page! -- Paxomen 01:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluffy the English Vampire Slayer

I just wanted you to know I never "hit and run" nominate. I believe we will get a win/win out of this in two ways. First it will (or should) attract others to edit as well as you (no criticism implied), and second the article will be strengthened enough. I'll revist the nomination in a day or two. Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, no offence taken. -- Paxomen 13:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:The Judge (Buffyverse).jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:The Judge (Buffyverse).jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Buffycanon

Template:Buffycanon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Mango juice^talk 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Oddball Barnstar
		For your vast improvements to Buffyverse studies (even though I still believe the article should be deleted), you are awarded the Oddball Barnstar. --Nlu (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) -- Paxomen 17:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]