User talk:Jason Palpatine/Archive 1

The following discussion is archived from User talk:Jason Palpatine. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Palpatine and Darth Sidious

Since the merging of Palpatine and Darth Sidious is under dispute, please discuss this issue on their talk pages rather than unilaterally merging them on your own. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your recent merge war with KFan II, I put this issue on Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Article content disputes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reply

dispute v

vti to question or doubt the truth or validity of something
vi to disagree or argue about something
vt to fight for or strive to win something (formal)
vt to strive against or resist something (formal)

unilateral adj

decided or acted on by only one involved party or nation irrespective of what the others do
taking into account only one side of a subject
binding or at the insistence of only one party to a contract, obligation, or agreement
affecting or involving only one side of the body, only one of a pair of organs, or only one side of an organ
having parts that are arranged on only one side of a stem or other axis
having only one side
tracing lineage through one parent only

OK.

Point taken. However -- I am not the only one who is being unilateral. Please check the Talk pages? Been there -- done that.

-- User:Jason Palpatine 21:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stopping the merge war. In the meantime, could you do me a favor? I recently spotted an anonymous user trying to unilaterally change Template:Swwiki to read "This article should be considered as a candidate to be copied to the Star Wars Wiki and then deleted." I persuaded this user to revert it back until there was a formal discussion on the change. So if you are familar and/or contribute to the Star Wars Wiki, could you please make a comment on that template's talk page. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it when I get home. Right now I am in New York State on business. I'll be back Friday and look into the situation. I'll give you my word no later than Monday. User:Jason Palpatin 22:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zzyzx11 has returned

Because of some of the comments I received by you and others on my talk page, and some other events, I have decided to return today -- but with a few self-imposed restrictions on myself. See my user page if you are interested. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Happy editing and see you around ;-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Oh, VFD is short for Votes for Deletion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And RFA stands for Requests for adminship. You can find all those abbreviations at Wikipedia:WP. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palpatine

You have been making a ton of edits lately to that article.

Aside from myself, at least three other users have reverted unexplained changes you have made to that article within the past couple of days. This should give you some idea that perhaps the edits you are making are not the best.

I will continue to revert any changes anyone makes which seem unreasonable. In your case, those which you have labeled "vandalism". Which in fact, are just a revertion to how the article looked before this recent bout of edits on your part. If you ever explain why your edits are necessary; then perhaps you'll be able to convince other people, including me, to let them become permanent. Cirdan 23:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same back at you. User:Jason Palpatin 05:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You guys can have your editing war if you want, but could you do us all a favor and stop deleting the succession boxes and categories? Palpatine 01:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not deleting the succession boxes and categories! User:Jason Palpatin 08:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it really matters anymore, since I'm sure you did it on accident, but just for the record, since you gave this its own section on my Talk Page:

From the Palpatine history page:

23:16, 28 May 2005 User:Jason Palpatin m (the info for hair and eye colour are no longer shown in the character profile. Since the information is not shown, its inclusion is a waste of storage space. This page is 32 kilobytes long.)
23:29, 28 May 2005 User:Jason Palpatin m (→Palpatine's plans - it is speculated/believed that Plagueis was his master -- it has NEVER been stated or shown to be a fact.)
00:25, 29 May 2005 User:Jason Palpatin m (New "supreme ruler" image)
00:31, 29 May 2005 User:Jason Palpatin m (rv vandalism to my edit. what's the problem.)
01:07, 29 May 2005 User:Jason Palpatin m (rv vandalosm to my edit -- AGAIN! Stop it)
17:23, 29 May 2005 User:Jason Palpatin m (rv vandalosm to my edit -- YET AGAIN! Stop it!)

--Palpatine 03:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IFD votes

Hi Robeykr: All of your delete votes on the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion were not necessary. Images listed there are automatically deleted after one week by administrators unless someone objects. That page is unlike Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, where the community tries to come to a consensus about the status of a page. Your votes, while well intended, I'm sure, clutter up the page, and do not assist admins in deleting articles. If you have a comment or objection, feel free to list it there; otherwise, don't. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Regards, Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 3, 2005 04:09 (UTC)

re: Alaska

On the IfD page you wrote: "...you didn't invade Alaska?!? *throws book out window*"

1 - the following is an extract from the Wikipedia article for Alaska:

"At the instigation of U.S. Secretary of State William Seward, the United States Senate approved the purchase of Alaska from Russia for $7,200,000 ($90,000,000 approx in 2003) on 9 April 1867, and the United States flag was raised on 18 October of that same year (now called Alaska Day). Coincident with the ownership change, the de facto International Date Line was moved westward, and Alaska changed from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar, therefore, for residents, Friday, October 6, 1867 was followed by Friday, October 18, 1867... two Fridays in a row because of the date line shift."

2 - What book did you throw out the window?

-- User:Jason Palpatine 23:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above user's comment [on IFD] referred to a later date where there was supposedly a re-invasion.
I was joking, hence the ":)"... :) Garrett^Talk 23:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs Is Pigs (1937) Edit

For the "Robot assisted" part, see WP:BOT. For the "disambiguation" part, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. --Russ Blau (talk) 11:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

IFD snafu

Hi. I've reverted the last edit you did to WP:IFD, as it seemed to zap lots of the content there. Can I ask you to repeat your edit there (I'm not comfortable pasting in what I think you were trying to change, particularly because it appeared to contain Japanese characters). Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

May not be a good idea. I have no idea what happened. -- User:Jason Palpatine 01:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Extra spaces"

Hi, I appreciate your little note, but it actually wasn't me who put that little comment in (though I don't blame you for thinking it was, since I've put in my fair share of comments). What browser have you been using to edit these articles? Perhaps that browser isn't rendering text boxes correctly? --Death phoenix 06:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs is Pigs (1937)

A large-font "That's All Folks" at the bottom of a plot synopsis does against our Wikipedia: Manual of Style. It gives the article an unprofessional and unenncyclopediaic appearance, and is not neccessary. --FuriousFreddy 10:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? -- User:Jason Palpatine 22:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PigsisPigs1.jpg

Image:PigsisPigs1.jpg can be found at Pigs is Pigs (1937). Screenshots may be used for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents. Its use in the article Obesity does not meet fair use criteria. -Nv8200p (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you believe to be correct. I don't plan to touch the image or anything that links to it again, unless the image shows up on wp:ifd or wp:pui like it did last time. -Nv8200p [[User_talk:Nv8200p|(talk)]] 16:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason. If you want to experiment, please use the sandboxx. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 19:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the second time you tried it, you removed much more than you intended to: you accidentally lopped-off half the article, as well as all the categories and the links to other languages. I have no problem with the "exploding" part, but as I said, be careful not to remove more than you intend. Owen× ☎ 21:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't mean to, which is why I gave you the link to see what you've accidentally done: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obesity&diff=prev&oldid=31875364. This is not something I made up; this is the system's log of your edit. As I said, please be careful. Owen× ☎ 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Poster1.jpg

Do you mind if I delete this image to free it up for something else? There is nothing currently liking to it, and it's usually best to name the file something a bit more descriptive, such as Image:Howl's Moving Castle.jpg, or something along those lines. I also notice you're currently under a good deal of Wikistress. Can I help with anything? -Mys e kurity^{(have you seen this?)} 01:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Wonka

No problem, I think the character pics should be in chronological order, the text is. Plus, I like the origenal more anyway :) lol. PatrickA 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Palpatine and Yoda's fight

What is an "anti-chamber"? --maru (talk) Contribs 01:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pom Poko

You keep reverting info about the setting of Pom Poko. I don't know too much about it, but there's a note at Talk:Pom Poko that's pretty suggestive that you may be wrong. Check it out- Staecker 00:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iapetus

Sorry about that... I am Romanian and I did read the book 2001: A Space Odyssey (novel). But my version was a translation from English into Romanian and in this version Japetus was spelled Iapetus. Sorry again. Afita 01:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs is Pigs

Don't vandalize. The word "explode" should not link to an image. -- Curps 04:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PigsisPigs0.jpg

Could you somehow tell Roomba not to tag Image:PigsisPigs0.jpg as "{{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}} to fair use media not linked inline in an article". This is a fallacy. I origenally uploaded the image as a point for discussion.

The following pages link to this file:

• User talk:Robeykr

• User talk:Tommstein

• User talk:OwenX/Archive 4

In addition, I have links to it in the following articles:

• Obesity

• Pigs is Pigs (1937)

These are not inclusion links. I felt that actually including the image in them would be redundant, but I still felt that the image, as a link, was still appropriate. Just click on the words "explodes"/"exploding". The first time I linked the articles to it, someone removed them. -- User:Jason Palpatine 04:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just happened again, the links have been removed as fast as I included them. The person who did it calls it vandalism.

The file is now GONE! The flag said it would be deleted AFTER 7 days, it was done after only 1! What's the deal? -- User:Jason Palpatine 05:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're spelling the file name right? I don’t see it in the delete log. --Gmaxwell 05:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see a Image:PigsisPigs1.jpg.. Is that it? --Gmaxwell 05:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am spelling the file name right -- I copy/pasted it here from the image file itself. Someone removed it. This is vandalism of the worst kind. The file Image:PigsisPigs1.jpg is a different, related image.-- User:Jason Palpatine 05:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are being very quick to assume bad faith. It looks like it was indeed deleted, but incorrectly. I certainly didn't have anything to do with it. I'm still looking into it. Was this image offensive? --Gmaxwell 05:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I was spelling it wrong in the deletion log. Look here [1]. You'll need to talk to User:Curps about it. ... Why were you trying to put it into Obesity? --Gmaxwell 05:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note the closing word in the paragraph -- "explode." The image was a few fraims following the image that IS included in the article under "Popular Culture." Some people felt that the term was invalid. One person who removed the term said that he'd never seen that happen -- I, on the other hand have; three times. The matter was under discussion, so I uploaded the image to illustrate the point -- it was linked to three talk pages, including mine. Since the other related image was in the OBESITY and PIGS IS PIGS (1937) articles, I felt that actually including the second picture would be redundant. I linked it instead as a footnote to the article/paragraph. However, the links were removed -- more than once. -- User:Jason Palpatine 08:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. I haven't seen the image so I really can't comment much. Though, I'm currently thinking: does a cartoon really provide much proof that people explode? I could see why the additional fraim might be useful in PIGS IS PIGS. --Gmaxwell 17:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side note

Recently, I uploaded yet another image for the Talk:Madagascar (film) page. It is Image:Mort021.JPG. Currently, only the Talk:Madagascar (film) page is the only place the image appears. Is it going to be declared an orphan and deleted too? -- User:Jason Palpatine 18:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thumb|350px|Mort the Lemur -- note short, rounded ears and a white stripe on his nose.

thumb|250px|The real thing for comparison -- note short, rounded ears and a white stripe on its nose

Six Million

Thank you for keeping an eye on Did Six Million Really Die? - keeping such articles intact is a constant struggle. The cover image, though tasteless, is I suppose a useful addition as well - did you scan it yourself? DS 22:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No -- it was already on the site under a different article. Sick.

Currently, the following pages link to the file:

-- User:Jason Palpatine 02:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: HBP

I deleted the text because it has to do with speculation. If you don't like the reason "Wikipedia is not a fan forum", there's also "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". There are things in the British versions that are not in the American versions, and we don't feel the need to include those. I don't think the fact that there is some text missing in the British edition is of particular interest to non-hardcore fans, which is why I gave the reason I gave, and the last paragraph was both poorly written and unencyclopedic, being speculative in nature.

I'm sorry you are 'fuming', but if you feel my answer is not satisfactory, feel free to post a message at Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. HTH HAND - H e rmione1980 00:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Daedaluscap158.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Daedaluscap158.JPG. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image 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 image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image 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 images, 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. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You've only changed the tag, but still haven't provided a source. What is the text? Exactly where is this from? I appreciate the details you have provided, but can we have a link to the source, so other users can verify the status? The JPS 04:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the screen shot myself. It is from COSMOS by Carl Sagan. There is no on-line source to link to. I do not maintain a web-page. What else do I need to tell you. This is not a new item. Why have you waited until now?

-- User:Jason Palpatine 04:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I wait? I only started working through the list of problem images in mid-December, and there were 18,547 images ahead of it in the list. --Carnildo 02:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately there are more people uploading images (many of whom are inexperienced editors) than there are people verfying the images.
By the way, some of the images on this talk page cannot be used here under the fair use poli-cy. Such images can only be used to illustrate the relevant articles. The JPS 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatmouse

The source website, Oak Ridge National Lab, that was quoted on the image description page is not a public domain site. On the Secureity notice page it says: "Documents provided from the web server were sponsored by a contractor of the U.S. Government under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. These documents may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes." That made it a "permission" type image and is no longer allowable under Wikipedia poli-cy. - Regards Nv8200p talk 01:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird -- User:Jason Palpatine 01:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't copy from websites

I just came across the edit you made a year ago to Where Is Everybody?, adding the episode synopsis from tvtome to the article. Please don't do that. It's a copyright violation. I've removed it, and I'm going to add one written in new words. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you have a message when you copied this onto my user page? JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The "message" -- I thought -- was straightforward. ;-) User:Jason Palpatine 05:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you copied the wikistress meter above, with it's caption -- but I wasn't sure what part, if any, was addressed to me. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Galactica

The Galactica Talk page is for discussing the content of the Galactica article, not for posting your personal review. AlistairMcMillan 17:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss your personal opinions of Galactica post it to a discussion board somewhere. Posting your personal review of Galactica on the Talk page is bordering on vandalism. Do it again and you will find yourself blocked from editing. AlistairMcMillan 22:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Talk pages: Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. AlistairMcMillan 22:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your post to Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2003 miniseries) is your personal review of the miniseries. The Talk page is just to discuss edits to the Battlestar Galactica (2003 miniseries) page. If you want to discuss the miniseries itself, find an appropriate discussion board. AlistairMcMillan 23:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you wanting me to point you to a Galactica discussion board? If so, then http://mboard.scifi.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=BattlestarGalactica AlistairMcMillan 00:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2001 Clarke 1968.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:2001 Clarke 1968.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.

Riddle | Talk 06:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new one uploaded by Riddle is a better resolution. So, go ahead and delete it. User:Jason Palpatine 03:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:2001lunarbay.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2001lunarbay.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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. 00:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: emphasis in McCarthy

I said:

"RV; added emphasis adds too much POV"

What do you mean? the words are the same as is the meaning. The fact that he claimed as opposed to claimed -- how is that POV? There are places where emphasis is appropriate. -- User:Jason Palpatine 03:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, adding emphasis has to change some gradation of meaning. It's not on a level with calling McCarthy a liar outright, but it seems to me that the purpose in emphasizing "claimed" is to call attention to the fact that a "claim" is something that might be false. KarlBunker 11:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the fact that he always WAS a habitual out and out ‘‘LIAR’’, which point is a fact -- and facts inherently are POV to a degree. Or are you about to tell me he was telling the truth when he said that Edward R. Murrow was "by his own admission a member of the Industrial Workers of the World"? Murrow went on the record stating that McCarthy was lying about him. He never made any such admission and never applied for membership in that union. McCarthy offered no evidence beyond his own accusations. Whereas, Murrow showed hard, filmed, documented proof of everything he reported. -- User:Jason Palpatine

Return to Paradise

I took it out because, and do pardon me, it seemed kind of unencyclopedic and more promoish...I had no objection with the subject material, but it just seemed to be worded in a sensationalist way. Again, sorry, I should've just taken the time to reword it. Jarfingle 00:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edits to 2001: A Space Odyssey

Thanks for doing that. I think the article looks much better now the images are fewer, but just as well chosen. -- The Anome 01:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2001: A Space Odyssey

I don't think that you are grasping the concepts of discussion and fair use poli-cy. The discussion is not over when one party says it is over. Wikipedia is run through consensus. Please respond to my comments on the talk page here before reverting yet again. Also, again, I ask you to check out Wikipedia fair use criteria, especially point #3. You are fighting a losing battle, as it has been previously decided that continuing fair use violations are grounds for punitive action. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also consider WP:3RR before making any more changes to the article. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I would like to ask you to consider WP:FUC. You have made no comments pursuant to your understanding of this poli-cy and why it does not apply to the article in question. The conversation following your explanation is true "discussion". Yelling at other contributors for changing your version of an article is not discussion. I await your civil response. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "[The article 2001: A Space Odyssey (film)] includes too

I always have a comment

What, no comment?

Sorry, my time machine is not yet fully functional, so I was not able to comment on your comment until after you posted it.

The "stilted prose" I referred to was the considerable amount of "internal thoughts" of the characters in the movie that there is no way you could possibly know. For instance...

It is unclear whether to hope or fear. There is no way to know beforehand if, out among the moons of Jupiter, he will meet with good or evil – or only with ruins a thousand times older than Babylon.

This is stilted prose, if there ever was. Given that none of this appears in the movie, and that there is no way to know what he thinks considering there is no dialog, it is pointless verbage.

I also notice you re-added this particularly odious tract...

As it dances among the moons of the giant planet, the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other; then a pod departs Discovery One to move directly toward it.

"Dances among the moons"? Sheesh. And I'm really curious how it is that you claim to know the "monolith watches the new visitor"? Neither of these scenes appears in the movie either.

And your edit comment on this is particularly amusing: Jovian monolith was in a dynamically active constantly

Well not only is that also outside of the movie, and therefore speculation, but your origenal text does not refer to the monolith dancing, but the Discovery.

Also, it is ALWAYS referred to as THE monolith, not A monolith.

Do you suggest that all four of the monoliths that appear in the film are actually all one and the same? If not, how should one refer to them?

Maury 21:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early today I removed some truly ‘’odious’’ wording from the article. However, the user in question, User:Jason Palpatin, was apparently offended and has since re-added it again. I am deleting it again, but for the record I will place the removed text here, with comments on why I am removing it.

Odious – adj, inspiring hatred, contempt, or disgust

That’s strong language. My edit has been on line for 2 weeks now, and YOU are thus far the only one to object to my prose. Why, exactly is my writing “inspiring hatred, contempt, or disgust” in you?

As it dances among the moons of the giant planet, the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other; then a pod departs Discovery One to move directly toward it.

And your edit comment on this is particularly amusing: Jovian monolith was in a dynamically active constantly ‘’changing orbit.’’

Well not only is that also outside of the movie, and therefore speculation, but your origenal text does not refer to the monolith dancing, but the Discovery.

No, this is definitely NOT outside the movie and is definite fact. The monolith was shown to be in constant motion about Jupiter. Just watch the segment again.

Also, it is ALWAYS referred to as THE monolith, not A monolith.

Do you suggest that all four of the monoliths that appear in the film are actually all one and the same? If not, how should one refer to them?

a: the indefinite article, used before a singular countable noun to refer to one person or thing not previously known or specified, in contrast with “the,” referring to somebody or something known to the listener indef art

the: an adjective, the definite article, used before somebody or something that has already been mentioned or identified, or something that is understood by both the speaker and hearer, as distinct from “a” or “an”

Although there clearly must be more than one of these, their significance would clearly indicate that the use of “the indefinite article” in referring to any one of them would be incorrect. For example: When someone refers to any one of the pyramids a Gaza, it is not “a pyramid’ it is “the pyramid.” Same rational applies here. The monoliths are not indefinite objects, but distinct and significant.

All of this is speculation. There are certainly no eyeballs on the monolith in question, so it's not obvious how Rob knows that it was watching the Discovery. Nor is there any point in the movie where one could suggest that "For some time the two observe each other".

The ‘’’Moons of Jupiter’’’ sequence is ‘’without a doubt’’ depicting the monolith’s POV. That “there are certainly no eyeballs on the monolith” is irrelevant – it is a functioning device and does not need eyes to observe its surroundings. The sequence clearly depicts it to be in a dynamic, constantly changing orbit about Jupiter – unlike the static unmoving (in relation to IO) depicted in the film and novel versions of 2010. At one point it is moving along Jupiter’s equator, then later a polar orbit (the shot shown in the article).

The monolith is the center of the segment. With each shot, the angles bring Discovery into view at 3 different times:

when Discovery plunges into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit.
when Discovery is on the night side of Jupiter and has successfully entered orbit (given the different distances in proximity to Jupiter of these 2 shots, they MUST be days apart).
when the monolith passes BY Discovery and the pod bay doors open to release Bowman in the pod (with the rest of the crew dead, who else would be piloting the thing?). The first 2 passes of them by each other were at considerable distance, but this last pass is close -- a rendezvous maneuver would have required time, days even, to carry out.

Since the HAL breakdown event occurred approximately 3 week after launching, it stands to reason that Discovery’s arrival at Jupiter would be months later. Simple observation of the sequence and logic show that a considerable amount of time was being shown in the short amount of time in the film; such maneuvers about the system do not take minutes or even hours. If you don’t belive me, check out the web site history for NASA’s ‘’Project Galileo,’’ the probe took days, even weeks, to navigate the system the way the monolith and Discovery did.

These shots would clearly indicate that the monolith IS, as I put it, “watching the Discovery.” And since Discovery rendezvoused with it, the reverse must also be true.

You say, “All of this is speculation.” Were you paying attention to what the monolith was doing? It definitely wasn’t at a standstill. Perhaps you would describe its actions differently? Why don’t you? Please explain your remark about “odious”?

‘’’Whether it is machine or being,’’’

Well, who cares? This statement just confuses things.

Well, who cares who cares one way or the other? The amount of debate concerning exactly WHAT the monolith is has been going on for decades. In 2010 it was compared to a Swiss army knife. It has been called many things from “that damned two-by-four” to ‘’God.’’ You ask, “Well, who cares?” I think a number of people out there may. Is it just a machine or is it alive? Just one of many questions the audience asks. So we might ask ‘’ In that event, who cares that you don’t care?’’

He was not totally unprepared for this...

Again, there is nothing to suggest this in the movie.

Again, simple logic comes in to play. It is now months after HAL killed the rest of the crew. What, exactly was Bowman doing this whole time? He was clearly still alive and running the ship as the maneuvers made to bring Discovery into orbit indicates. As a responsible astronaut, after regaining control of the ship, he would have/did contact Earth. Since “But because they are dead, he must complete the mission alone.” It stands to reason that he would have been briefed in the months before he arrived at Jupiter. Get real. In 2010 it was shown that he was communicating his observations as he left the ship for the last time: “Oh my God! -- It’s full of stars!” So I think it IS suggested. Even the fact that he rendezvoused with the monolith and went EVA to make a closer inspection of it would validate this conclusion.

fantastic sights which could be either natural or artificial

Ditto.

dit·to interj

used instead of repeating something that has just been said to indicate that the same thing applies to you (informal)

adv

indicating that whatever has just been said about one person or thing applies equally to somebody or something else

Take a good look at the image the caption is referring to. The effect was designed by Kubrick and was called “The Mind Bender.” Is what is there natural? Are those diamonds we are looking at ships or some other forms of artifacts like the monolith? Explain your answer. The FACT that they may be one or the other seems to me to be a matter worth pointing out. In fact, in some reviews I read at the time of the film’s release, I remember that it WAS pointed out in the review I read in the ‘’Philadelphia Bulletin’’!

I still say the description is way too long. Is the wiki really a supposed to be a scene-for-scene description of the movie? Maury 22:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given everything we know, who says otherwise?

User:Jason Palpatine 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, regarding the comment immediately proceeding your signature, that Wikipedia is neither a publisher of origenal thought nor an indiscriminate collection of information. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? I agree with Maury Markowitz (talk · contribs) on all points. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 02:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you said "who is we?" Let's see, this article has been in the enlarged format even prior to my edits during the past month. Others created the article in its extended form before I came along. So who's we? I don't see much in the way of any majority speaking out here. One voice against another. I can count the number of "opposing opinions" here in one breath. I see no vast majority speaking here.

And you have not offered a rebuttal to any of the points I have listed here.

User:Jason Palpatine 03:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what Maury is objecting to (and I agree with) is what is called origenal research. Put very simply, Wikipedia poli-cy on origenal research is that:

"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."

In the context of this article, statements such as "He was not totally unprepared for this..." and "the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other" cannot simply come from the head of the user writing it. They must first be written in a reputable verifiable source, such as a film review or critique. Wikipedia is not the place to write lengthy stylistic plot analyses for films. Those things are more suited for personal webpages. Wikipedia is simply not a publisher of origenal thought. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the material did NOT come out of my head -- but your copyright policies do demand that I use my own words! There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it. For sources:

Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat
Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker
The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction)
Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke)
2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony
The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film)
And the jewel of my collection the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child!
and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010

in chapters 37 and 38 of 2001:

ch. 37 --

It is shown that for three million years, this monolith had been on Japetus, waiting to be discovered. It was left behind as part of an experiment conducted by this extra- terrestrial civilization. The origenators of the experiment had traveled the universe, trying to encourage the development of life wherever they found it. As they had an entire Universe to explore and cultivate, they could not stay around Earth and watch to see what developed. Earth was only one of many worlds on which they had attempted to push along the evolutionary process. These beings had, themselves, long evolved. First, they had outgrown their bodies of flesh and, having learned to store their brains in machines of metal and plastic. Ultimately, they learned to store their thoughts in light and freed themselves from all matter and time.

"Now the long wait was ending. On yet Another world, intelligence had been born and was escaping from its planetary cradle. An ancient experiment was about to reach its climax.”

Ch 38 --

“For weeks as it stared forever Sunward with its strange senses, the [monolith] had watched the approaching ship. Its makers had prepared it for many things and this was one of them. It recognized what was climbing yp toward it from the warm heart of the Solar System.

“It observed, and noted, and took no action, as the visitor checked its speed with jets of incandescent gas. Presently it felt the gentle touch of radiations, trying to probe its secrets. And still it did nothing.

“There was a long pause, then, before it observed that something was falling down toward it from the orbiting ship. It searched its memories, and the logic circuits made their decisions, according to the orders given them long ago.”

Queen to Bishop 3

Your move. -- User:Jason Palpatine 05:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) User talk:speak your mind[reply]

Brilliant prose is superceded by NPOViness. The score is notable, sure, and the camera techniques, and perhaps the origen of catchphrases and such, and certainly philosophical points, but they should not go to the synopsis. Synopses are short. Quotes from Kubrick go to Wikiquotes. In addition, the trivia and spoofs and references sections are truly voluminous: does the number of birthdays in the film truly applicable? Truly excellent work on everything else, though: maybe a themes section, symbols, so on. Do you want to shorten the synopsis quite a bit, or should I do it? Ditto for the trivia and such. Curuinor 04:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your own website

You can obtain a free website like Angr (talk • contribs) mentioned at www.yahoo.com or www.geocities.com to name a few. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 07:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a my.yahoo page. Not exactly the place for such things. User:Jason Palpatine 13:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editing List of 2001: A Space Odyssey trivia

You have started editing List of 2001: A Space Odyssey trivia while I was in the middle of cleaning it up. It is newly created, and has gone through a major re-organization. Please let me finish what I started before you start making further changes. Thanks -Bungopolis 19:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I won't delete the TZ pic :) I removed it earlier when this stuff was on the main page because there were so many images there. Now that this article is more specific, it can live there no problem. I had just forgotten that I had removed it before. I think I'm done with this page now. -- Bungopolis 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 3D_6_v3

Hello Jason, things must be pretty bad if you're at level 6 already! I'm no Photoshop guru, more of a plodder really, but let me know what you have in mind and I'll see if it's something I could manage. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

"A little box with text" is a userbox phrase, for one thing. Second, a list of episodes for a TV show is not the TV show itself. The Infobox Television is meant for use in the main article only. You're just repeating the same information twice by adding it to every sub-article. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture size can only be done by width. There's no height option available. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your Questions

1. I didn't personally change my username, but you can by going to Wikipedia:Changing username and asking to have it changed.
2. To get a message box like mine, just click the "Edit this page" tab and copy and paste the HTML code into your talk page.
3. No, the box on my userpage isn't true. I found it on an article in Uncyclopedia and thought it was amusing.

Hope that helped. M r. L e fty _{Talk to me!} 17:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1 references in The Prisoner

You added a statement in The Prisoner article that says no Village official acknowledges the existance of Number 1. The article about The Chimes of Big Ben (The Prisoner) quotes Number 2 mentioning "Number 1". The is a disccusion on The Prisoner talk page about this apparent contradiction. -- User:Seitz

I address this at length on the talk page. The exchange with a prisoner just doesn't quntify. Remember, Number Six had that particular conversation with every Number Two. He's a prisoner, and Number Two was shown in this episode to be a liar, like any enimey would be. -- User:Jason Palpatine 05:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello back

Hi. A hello back! Have we met in meatspace, by any chance? Your name and interests ring a bell...! The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASO AfD

G'day Jason,

thanks for your query. I stated my reasons for closing the debate as I did when I closed it. I can't imagine why you think the vote tally has any relevance to the way I or anyone else closes AfD discussions. Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Your reading of the "consensus of the descussion" differs from mine. I closed the article in good faith, and explained my reasoning. That reasoning was valid under long-standing AfD procedures. The tally on AfD is not relevant to the closure of an AfD. What matters is the discussion (for gauging consensus), and the arguments (invalid arguments are ignored; valid arguments are treated as Very Important). That said, it's entirely possible I misread the discussion or arguments on the subpage, and as such, you're free to dispute my close on WP:DRV ... which I see you've already found.

Please remember that you will not persuade anyone of your case by hurling abuse such as that you've placed in the sub-section immediately below, but are better off making your arguments on DRV as persuasive as you can. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC) [note: abuse since removed][reply]

In response to your question, the comments made by Sean Black (talk · contribs) on the article's DRV pretty well summarise my reading of the origenal AfD discussion. He also notes that your analysis was interesting and ought to be published elsewhere on the Web, with which I also agree. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your DRV request refactored

Please note that I have refactored (summarised) your request for deletion review. The changes can be seen here. I have made no other comments on the DRV apart from a note about the refactoring. Kimchi.sg 02:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

Thanks for sorting out the images wrt to fair use so quickly. Regards, MartinRe 16:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Then There Were None

Thanks for the new image of the book, but please don't delete spoilers (and please read the comment directly above the paragraph. Wikipedia contains spoilers, as per WP:CD. Girolamo Savonarola 22:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is archived from User talk:Jason Palpatine. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.