User talk:Shannernanner/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shannernanner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome! Hello, Shannernanner/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Dzonatas 19:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

hey shabbernanner..what dont you like about my gabriel changes? (im the guy whos been trying to change it) the jew encylopedia article you cite shows the you are right as far as the arabic trasdion ofthe meaning...but the gavar part of the word in hebrew wither means strength or man. also i dont see why we shouldnt link to the article in wiki on gabriel (which also mentions diffrent meanings for the word gabriel) SEP 11 2006

I'm sorry, I didn't see your comment until now. The definition on that page cites no reference, and citing another page on Wikipedia for a definition is circular referencing. I don't think we should link to that page because it's a page on the angel Gabriel, not the name. -Shannernanner 14:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Technobabble1 03:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)== What did i Vandalize? == Tell me what entries you considered Vandalism please, i don't know what the heck you talking about.Technobabble1 01:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. and Mrs. Turner, and then your user page; you may not remove other user's comments from your user page. -Shannernanner 03:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay the second one was a stupid mistake, i didn't know that you wern't supposed to remove other users comments. However the Mr and Mrs. Turner thing, well I was removing Vandelism, I've played all the Kingdom Hearts games, they included, No nickolodian shows or refrences. the Turners were not involved at all and thus the category was put on as a joke. removing a category that does not apply cannot be vandalism, misleading people into thinking that characters who arn't in a work of fiction are is just stupid and should be considered vandalism.

I'm really sorry, that was my mistake; a lot of people had been adding that category, and I read the history wrong as you adding it, rather than deleting it. I'll remove the warnings. Thanks for being patient with me. :-) -Shannernanner 03:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, dude/babe (I have no earthly idea what gender you are)Technobabble1 03:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits to One Tree Hill (TV series)

		The Minor Barnstar
		I, mboverload, hereby award you the minor barnstar for all your work in doing the small, sometimes unnoticed fixes to the article One Tree Hill (TV series). Welcome to Wikipedia, I really hope you stay and do more work like this! mboverload @ 11:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) I'll do my best. --Shannernanner 11:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ana Lucia

Please stop making edits to all of the Lost pages changing "Ana Lucia" to any other variation.Her name is neither hyphenated nor accented. Thank you. --pIrish 15:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ana-Lucía spelled without an accent would be pronounced completely differently; the point of an accent is to tell one where to put the accent.[1] --Shannernanner 01:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how it is pronounced, Ana Lucia is correct. Please check the link I left you. ABC is the official source for spelling. Period. Also, the discussion of how to spell her name has been brought up on several Lost talk pages, you should always refer to those before making major changes like that just to make sure the matter hasn't already been settled before. --pIrish 03:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I read your link, and I take it you didn't read the one I provided. If you believe the ABC website is absolutely correct for the spellings of their names, then check these: an episode synopsis where her name is spelled with a hyphen[2]; and the show synopsis, which has it both with the hyphen and without[3]. It does matter how it is pronounced, as Lucia, without the accent, would be pronounced in Spanish LOO-see-uh, rather than loo-SEE-uh, which is how it is pronounced on the show, and Ana-Lucía is a latina who speaks Spanish[4] as well as English. I did read the discussion on the talk pages, and saw no set precedent for the spelling of her name. See also: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes; diacritical marks often left out on websites; the difference between Lucía and Lucia[5] --Shannernanner 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither link you provided was specifically geared toward Ana Lucia, the character. So please don't think I disregarded what you had to say about the issue. I only feel you jumped far too quickly to change every single mention of Ana Lucia on Wikipedia without once asking if it was the right thing to do. While you outright told people what you did and why, you never once asked if you should. Something that changes something in many, many articles that was understood to be the correct version should always be brought up in the talk pages first.

And I'm happy to know that ABC can't figure it out themselves, but, honestly, that should make it even more obvious that you shouldn't change it so abruptly. If the show can't figure out which version they want, why should you be the one to make the final decision? I'm not mad or frustrated or anything, I just wish you had brought it up for a real discussion before going on the editing spree. Anyway, I cannot comment anymore as I will be out of town until next week, so don't expect anything else for a while if you choose to reply. --pIrish 06:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry you felt I went about it the wrong way; perhaps that's what you should have said in the first place, rather than simply that I was wrong. My goal was not to disturb anything, or to go on an "editing spree," but to have the best possible information available. I am going to make a note on the character page about the alternate spellings, and if any more information becomes available, I will update it myself. --Shannernanner 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Last reply before I head out of town: Good edit to the Ana Lucia page. It's well-worded, it points out the flaw, and it really doesn't cause any sort of disruption. =) You might want to add it back again or something as soon as you can because it looks like it got deleted when they were trying to fix my mistake (bad redirecting). --pIrish 15:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Shannernanner 15:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for fixing my silly mistakes :-P! MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 08:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Shannernanner 08:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Haspel Corporation

MatthewFenton and Shannernanner, could you take a look at and improve Haspel Corporation? Matthew, as the screenshot guru, can you grab a frame from the last 60 seconds of "Graduation Day" for the page?

Also, Matthew, you asked me yesterday if you thought promicin should have its own page. I've thought about it for the last day, and have changed my mind; it probably should.

Thanks again to both of you for your work on The 4400 pages. Travisl 22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what I can do. And thanks for the appreciation. :-) Shannernanner 04:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've just seen the season finale, and am updating many of the pages to match. Don't go looking at recent edit histories if you haven't seen it yet. Travisl 02:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Metallicar, stub or no

Regarding marking Metallicar as a stub or not... articles don't remain as stubs just because they need extra editing... most articles on Wikipedia tend to be far from perfect. The definitions mentioned at WP:STUB seem to boil down to "is there still a noticable/significant amount of information that needs to be added?" Do you believe that the article is obviously too small, that any non-expert could add information to the article simply by googling for more information?

Up until just a few weeks ago, WP:STUB defined stubs as any article that had "3 to 10 short sentences". It's recently changed to be more flexible for more detailed topics, but given that many topics on Wikipedia get more than 2000 google hits, I see no reason why the 3-10 sentences criteria doesn't apply to Metallicar, and at 14 sentences, it doesn't seem like there could be much more information out on the web for non-experts to add to the article. --Interiot 05:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this ought to be discussed on the Metallicar talk page. It says on the Wikipedia:Stub page that "The length of the article is not an absolute rule to classify between a stub and a non-stub." Shannernanner 05:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll move the discussion there. For what it's worth, I'm also discussing the recent change to WP:STUB at Wikipedia talk:Stub#Stub tag removal, but since I believe the recent changes to WP:STUB were made more for larger topics, I don't think that discussion there is pertinent to this specific article about a more narrow topic. --Interiot 05:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn images

In case you haven't seen it, a discussion thread has been started regarding your removal of images from the Audrey Hepburn article (see Talk:Audrey Hepburn. I would like to invite you to state your views; I personally had never heard of this screenshot limit until now and I've been involved with a number of articles with multiple screencaptures. Has the rulebook been rewritten again as it was with magazine images and publicity photos? Pretty soon I could see Wikipedia losing images entirely. 23skidoo 05:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jane Eyre

Hi, I notice you moved Jane Eyre to Jane Eyre (novel) with the intention of making Jane Eyre a disambig page. I don't think this is a good idea at all for the reasons outlined at Talk:Jane Eyre (novel) - care to discuss? Ziggurat 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Princessdiaries2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Princessdiaries2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hannah Montana

Why are you removing the writer and director columns and the upcoming episode entries? - Peregrinefisher 04:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned the reason for the upcoming episodes both in my edit comments and on the discussion page. The writer and director aren't standard columns for episode lists, and since I'm making pages for the individual episodes, it seemed logical to me that they could be removed. -Shannernanner 04:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess what you're doing is basically cool. I just wish you would create the episode pages before linking to them. Anyone who comes across the page right now will have trouble navigating it. - Peregrinefisher 04:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll try to hurry. :-) -Shannernanner 04:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unisex names references

The Name Nerds website currently yields a DNS error and can't be found, so it's useless as reference.

As for the Behind the Name website, someone from that website regularly spams all the name articles on the Wikipedia (given name, etc.), so I just figured it was a remnant from one of their last spam runs that I had missed. I occasionally go through the external links for the name articles since they regularly get spammed by various name websites (that all seem to have very similar data, and are usually not much more than Gregory = watchful). Compare that to the Wikipedia Gregory article.

Personally, I find the Behind the Name website about average for name websites on the internet, but that's just my opinion. They don't seem to have a unisex name page or category, so I don't know how you were using it as a reference. ^Blank ^Verse 14:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Name Nerds doesn't show any kind of error on my end.

Behind the Name is specifically cited on the page, and I also used it for finding names which are considered unisex, whether originally, traditionally, or in modern usage. No, it does not have a "unisex section," but it does have information available. As for its reliability, I find it to be above average compared to most name sites, but the "average" is awful, in my opinion. I did not rely solely on its say-so in most cases. -Shannernanner 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Idiot!

No, I'm not insulting you. This is about idiot plot, which you will note I have partially de-Ebertified. What do you think? DS 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that looks much better. Good job. :-) -Shannernanner 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Image Caption

What's wrong with having an image caption? For me it just shows up when I hover over the picture. - Peregrinefisher 00:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it, I just always assumed the point was for it to show below the image, and in tables the caption doesn't show up. Also, since the images are now on the individual episode pages, and clicking on the episodes will show the images with captions, you can add the same caption to the episode page if you want to. If you feel it's important I don't have a problem with it, though. :-) -Shannernanner 00:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I like to have it for fair use reasons. - Peregrinefisher 00:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see any fair use reason to have (non-visible) image captions on an episode list page? There are wiki-guidelines regarding (visible) image captions, but as far as I can tell, none specifically relating to fair use. -Shannernanner 01:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If there's nothing wrong with them, could you leave them? I'll leave the decision up to you. If no ones trying to delete them, I guess it doesn't matter. The reason why I like them is that there's a huge discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists over whether images are allowed in list of episode pages. To paraphrase, people who want to delete them think they aren't accompanied by "significant discussion." Having a caption that specifically relates them to the episode just adds weight to the "significant discussion" that's required. - Peregrinefisher 05:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I don't seem to be having the image problem you mentioned, maybe because I use a non-standard web browser. I'm sorry that I messed that part up for you. - Peregrinefisher 05:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

All I'm saying is, if you click on the episode next to them, you can add the exact same caption to the same image placed there, whereas the caption isn't even visible on the episode list page. ::shrug:: It just seems more logical to me. If it bothers you, though, it's fine. And, yeah, the image doesn't show up at all, either on the episode list page or on its own page. :-) -Shannernanner 05:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding: to clarify, what I mean even more specifically is, that those are the episodes to which the images belong, and those same images are on the episode pages, so if there is any confusion as to whether or not those are fair-use it should be made immensely clear there, whereas a caption that isn't visible on the episode list page wouldn't clarify it, IMO. -Shannernanner 06:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use requirements apply to each page the image appears on. People pretty much agree that they are OK on a page devoted to the episode. There isn't a consensus on images in list of episode pages, though. My strategy is to justify fair use images as much as possible wherever I use them. With a caption that specifically mentions the image, there is just that much more text to justify their fair use. I'll let you put the captions back if you agree, so as to not mess up the images. p.s. Are you a boy or a girl? - Peregrinefisher 06:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's fine, if that's what you want. I'm not sure what my gender has to do with anything, LOL. :-) -Shannernanner 06:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing, I guess. LOL :-) Peregrinefisher 06:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Great captions! Thanks. - Peregrinefisher 07:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're welcome. :-) -Shannernanner 07:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: page move

I replied on my talk page:

Yes, I am aware of this. I'm getting to it. —7.souls 11:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Monk

Please use the talk page to discuss the changes to the page, not edit summaries. The article needs to be cleaned up because it's a mess. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not disagree that the article needs to be cleaned up (and, indeed, worked on it myself), and I believe I explained myself adequately in the edit summary. If you disagree with what I and other users have said with regards to the changes you made (or you wish for us to clarify our issues with them), perhaps it would behoove you to address these specifically on the talk page. -Shannernanner 06:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not immediately replying to you. I do not watch other user's talk pages. Regarding what you said above and also the edit summary where you said "please discuss before changing again", I am not fully understanding where you are coming from. I have been discussing changes on the talk page, however you have not made one discussion edit on the talk page. You have been doing all of your discussing on the edit summaries, all the while I have been urging you to use the talk page. So I do not think it's entirely appropriate for you to be asking me to use the talk page when I have been having a pretty much one-sided discussion with myself there. I would also like you to read this excerpt from the edit summary help page for why using the edit summaries like you have is inappropriate. Please do not try to incite an edit war, and use the talk page and edit summaries appropriately. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not making any controversial edits made from solely my point of view. It is you who disagrees with the consensus of other editors, not I. Several other editors have pointed out their disagreement with your particular editors, not just me, and I have explained my reasoning in my edit summaries, as have other editors, yet you continue to make the same changes over. That is why we have asked you to discuss your changes on the talk page. I am not "inciting an edit war" in any sense. -Shannernanner 13:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, I can't help but think you were reverting me just for the sake of reverting me. Please read WP:Trivia. That section is not intended to be an exhaustive list of every one of Monk's quirks. That information would be better suited for the prose and in specific episodes where it played an important part in the story. There's also a guideline to avoid all trivia, which is a goal that any article that is striving to be a good article should follow. I won't revert you because I do not want an edit war, but I'll leave this up to you to decide if you think that the information about the water is absolutely necessary as a trivia item. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are accusing me of reverting the item because it was you, that is quite an accusation. To be honest, I didn't even specifically recognize the user name, and if I had, it wouldn't have made a difference. I was mainly reverting the person who attempted to "diagnose" his disorder, but thought that the item about the water had merit and could be included in the article. It should be in the prose, yes, but if you delete it altogether it's probably not ever going to end up there. -Shannernanner 11:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Vicky

Hi I'm Hmrox. I didn't vandalize the article. I thought she would have fitted in that category. But now I probaly really wouldn't consider her a devil child though. Hmrox 11:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. See the article "Devil-child films" for examples of what the category is referring to. -Shannernanner 11:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Princess Diaries (film)

I was lucky enough to find that new image online, but it's been difficult to upload others. Do you know where any images from the film are located, such as a scene from the beach or one of the Genovian parties? Never Mystic (t c) 16:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There are several images on this page. -Shannernanner 05:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Never Mystic (t c) 00:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) -Shannernanner 03:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My Edit, what was it?

I'm from the IP Address 199.249.157.129 (I forgot to log in, sorry), and you recently commented on the talk page of that IP address that my recent edit removed content. I can't remember what the article was, exactly. Could you refresh my memory? From what I can recall I was only correcting a typo, but since I don't remember clearly I could very well be wrong. Again, I apologize.Sparkleiya 09:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It was on the page Unisex name. If you would like to remove an entry, or several entries, it is recommended you provide an edit summary and/or discuss it on the talk page. -Shannernanner 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never even been to that page before. However, I am on a university network(in a dorm). So that could account for it. There are a lot of people here who don't know anything about wikipedia policy. Wonder if my neighbors got that message too. Oh, and I never arbitrarily delete content without mentioning it on the talk page/providing edit summary.

That's probably it. A lot of people have been vandalizing it in the past day or so. Don't worry about it. :-) -Shannernanner 09:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours, even if others have. Thank you. AEuSoes1 19:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel like we've had some sort of outreach bonding experience. You have a nice picture on your userpage. AEuSoes1 12:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) -Shannernanner 12:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Edits

What was that message in reference to? I made a few edits in the last few days. Thanks for explaining the minor edit criteria. kc12286 17:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)kc12286

Your edits to the article Zooey Deschanel. And you're welcome. -Shannernanner 17:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops

You are right about my making the wrong edit for disambiguation for Tharini Mudaliar. In other places, I have used Tamil people. Do you think that would be better? Skumarla 18:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the disambigs again, I would assume that was the intended use on her article, yes. -Shannernanner 21:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)