User talk:U-Mos/Archives/2008/July

Stolen Earth continuity section

I removed it because the information is now mostly redundant. For example, the bees, stolen planets, robotic hand, and crossover elements are already talked about. The rest borders on original research (e.g. the thing about previous Dalek encounters, H2O scooping). Sceptre ^(talk) 13:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And the continuity section on PiC has been removed, same reason (see the filming section). Sceptre ^(talk) 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Journey's End (Doctor Who)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) articles are written from a real worldperspecive... from a real world perspective... the trailer appeared as partof the episdoe... removing this tyoe of info because it is not incontinuity would be an in universe perspective and is prohibited.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

cite that please

Regarding this edit, could you please cite that standardization? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Oxford English Dictionary (published in a university town well known to Arcayne) defines story as: "an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment; a storyline" - according to this definition, Arcayne's original rationale, that story implied a written work rather than a filmed work, is void. The reference is to a broad aspect of the overall plot of that adventure, rather than a production aspect specific to just that episode, so story is the natural word to use.

As to standardisation, I'm not sure, but in terms of basic common sense and taking words at their "official" definition, I'd say that U-Mos was spot on. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hence the expression, "Tell me a story, mummy." Meaning a verbal conveyance - if story implied print, then the mother would be bemused at such a request, having expected to be asked to tell her child a story.

Or daddy, of course - gender inclusivity rocks. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I remain unconvinced. His word choice in Wiki-en, in an article which has multiple media expressions was not as specific as necessary. In a film that is only a film, it is appropriate to use 'story', as there is no medium in comparison/contrast.In films based on tv series (X-Files, Sex in the City, etc.), the proper notation is to predicate the word 'story' by which medium it was presented in - ie., 'an ongoing story in the series of alien subversion was not continued or addressed in the movie.' In those articles with more than four different mediums (tv, film, radio, books, comics, etc.), the need for clarification of story usage - or substituting a media-specific word like broadcast or episode - is more concise and therefore desirable.

Lastly, as TT has made a significant point of banning me from his user talk page, I would ask that he practice what he preach, and avoid littering my space with his posts, except in those situations where he is required to notify me.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

One final thing, U-Mos: Arcayne is, of course, blanking any comments I make to his/her talkpage - feel free to paste in anything and sign it yourself, if you think it's going to be useful to you. Good luck! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is always a good tactic for someone seeking admin-ship: asking folk to appropriate your comments and sign their own name. My above restrictions towards you appear to be fairly well justified. Please stay the hell away from me; you have nothing to say I find of any value. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You clearly said (incorrectly, despite your multiple degrees from Oxford who has, in fact, published at least one work of fiction before) that "story implies print". Since I have demonstrated that it doesn't, that would appear to be of value to you as it means that you, an Oxford graduate, no longer misunderstand a word in the English language. If you do not find that of value, you are stubborn and dim; if you do but are simply saying that you don't to maintain an image, you are even more stubborn and dim. ::Furthermore, you will kindly accept that I have not "banned you from my talkpage". I have simply said, in a coloured banner quite clearly printed at the top of the relevant page, that until you retract your original ban which came first, you may not post on my page.

And to be honest, if you carry on intentionally getting under my skin with comments like, "Get the Hell away from me" (and yes, there should be a capital h there, as my degree from Fairfax University tells me), I shall file an RfC on you. And while I'm sure you think you'll 'win' it hands down, I'm sure you won't enjoy it much, so would advise you to avoid that course of action. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 06:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I said that you didn't convince me by your dictionary demonstration. Now, you can continue trying to bait me, or you can go off an edit something. If I ask you to stay away from me - something you have been told to do by no less than six different editors and admins - maybe you should take the hint and do so, You are not interested in DR, as denoted by my former attempts to engage you in such. Frankly, I do not care if my dislike for you gets under your skin. I didn't ask for your love, and don't want it. If you wish to file an RfC on me, do so. Nothing I have ever said has made the slightest dent in your very large ego, so why would you expect it to magically happen now? Please stay away from me.

Oh, and by the way? "the hell" in the statement "Please stay the hell away from me" is is in fact the proper usage. Using the lower case denotes the descriptive sense of the word. Now, if I had said something like: "Go to Hell", the capitalization of the proper noun would have been appropriate. I don't even need an associate's degree to know that. I think we're done here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's been an explosion on my talk page... Anyway, back to the POINT. I changed episode back to story simply because that's how it is done across Wikipedia. I have never seen another SJA adventure referred to under its single episode. And if that should, than serial for the classic DWs should also use this. (And serial would also not have to refer to a TV broadcast) Not that I'm saying they should. Personally, I don't really mind, but I think when the linked article is on the whole "story" than the prose that links to it should refer to it in the same way. I mainly changed it simply for consistency's sake. U-Mos (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you link some examples of that, U-MOS?

As for the explosion, sorry about my part in that; I pretty much try to ignore the other user, but when he comes at me all specific-like, a response, though brief, is somewhat necessary. Feel free to delete the friction=y bits between me and TT at your whim. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In the continuity section of Turn Left (Doctor Who) is one, as well as being referred to as stories in The Sarah Jane Adventures page itself. I resent being asked to support all my decisions with articles that use a similar method, whereas you seem to think yours should be taken as read. U-Mos (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That was not my intent, U-Mos, and I apologize that you felt that way. In point of fact, every episodic article is indeed a story. So is every radio broadcast, or film, or comic book, or novel. The point is, we need to distinguish between these different stories, and the way we do that is to note what type of story it is. While you may think it is unambiguous, it is important to note that audio novels have been produced for SJA as well. Noting which medium the story appears in is the best way to educate the newcomer to the article subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that. But when referring to the whole story, "story" is really the only option. Serial is used as generalisation in classic DW as they generally took over two episodes, but SJA is made up of two-parters. U-Mos (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I rather disagree with your interpretation. Should we get a Third Opinion on the subject? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You've had one. Your interpretation of the word is at odds with my opinion, U-Mos' opinion, others' opinion, and - vitally, the Oxford dictionary's opinion. 3-1, including the individual who added the word in the first place :-) ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 17:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What part of "stay away from me and my edits" was unclear to you? At least have a half-dozen admins who you have asked for advice have all suggested staying away. I am doing my best to simply ignore you, and I would strongly urge you to stay away, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean if I proposed green text in all Doctor Who articles, ordered every other WP:WHO editor to stay away from me, then I could claim no consensus opposing my plan exists because I'm ignoring everyone who has a differing point of view? Get real. I understand the advice totally, I simply have no intention of following it to this extent. You say "Shall we get a third opinion?" - you have had one. Just because you choose to ignore it because it suits you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's here, in atoms, bytes, bits, letters, words, punctuation and the odd gluon.

If you wish to ignore my comments, that is your privilege (though doing it in a deliberately ostentatious way is borderline) - but claiming that I haven't commented is just not on. And that's essentially what you're doing - asking for a third opinion when I have provided one is saying that my input doesn't affect the building of consensus. And you do know that's wrong, I'm sure. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 21:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I was under the assumption that through your many, many incarnations, you have at least at one point or another come across WP:3O. It seeks out opinion from a neutral third party. It's rather clear that you would be verifiably unable to act as such in this matter. Thanks for volunteering, though.

And my problems with you are fairly well beyond consensus - you know this fairly well, as you aren't daft. Since you are not willing to be more civil towards me, my choices are few: I can respond and send you scurrying into a closet, weeping inconsolably, or I can take the higher road and largely ignore you. I am choosing the latter as I have no interest in feeding you. In short, I am choosing to treat you like a particularly ugly set of curtains in a friend's home, and ignore you. If this bothers you, be more polite and assume good faith more often. Until then, I urge you to move on and find someone else to play with. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, let me know if you want me to submit the 3O, U-MOS. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, the WP:3O system is not appropriate for this. "Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors." Two editors. This is a dispute between three editors - therefore, a more appropriate venue for outside deliberation could be the WikiProject Doctor Who talkpage. How's that sound? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 10:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In my many, many, many, two incarnations (accounts is the word in common English usage, I believe), I have indeed come across WP:3O. And I understand from the titling of it - and from the very first sentence on the page - that: "Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors. When two editors cannot agree, either editor may list a dispute here to seek a third opinion." This isn't actually a dispute between two editors. Now... story time.

Once upon a time, two editors have a disagreement. A third chips in and takes a side - both members of that side present active arguments; the one person on the other side also presents active arguments. He suggest getting a third opinion (a device used to help resolve a dispute between two evenly-matched editors). He has it pointed out that there are already three opinions, so getting a third is rather awkward, and he attempts to defend his position.

Just thought I'd sum that up nicely.

I'll sign this with all of my many, many, many incarnations if you like, too - I'll even cover my past usernames just to make you happy... ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢, Porcupine (talk · contribs · logs), Rambutan (talk · contribs · logs), Circuit Judge (talk · contribs · logs) 07:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that 3O is not the place for this. The WikiProject seems more appropriate. U-Mos (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's no problem at all. Would you like to initiate conversation there first, or shall I?Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:43, July 12, 2008 (UTC)

BTW, congratulations on making a userpage, U-Mos :-) ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done it. U-Mos (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Rosetti's poem

Thanks for providing the citation, which only left the notability issue remaining. You moved the info from continuity to a new section, Outside references, which was reverted. Before re-adding it, you should probably recognize that its reintroduction is meeting resistance and initiate discussion, as per WP:BRD, as simply reverting it back isn't going to resolve the issue, and is only going to serve to piss one or both of us off. I am willing to discuss as long as you are. Could you please use the discussion page to explain why the Rosetti poem is crucial to an understanding of this episode? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could please ease off the unpleasant asides regarding 3RR, please? It doesn't do anything to contribute to s a solution and, just like you, I tend to find them more attack-y and less conducive to polite interaction. We have been interacting well recently. Please don't ruin it now. Stay on target, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to come and let you know that I was unaware of the source's failure was a recent discovery. I never thought to check the source because - I never would have considered the possibility of the source being wrong, seeing as it came from you. My apologies for not checking and bringing the problem to your attention earlier. Don't bang your head, bud - I've saved you from the issue being caught at promotion time. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)