This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Neutralhomer (talk | contribs) at 19:21, 14 January 2010 (→Concern about User:Station Agent 836). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Firsfron's talk page

Messages here

YGM ;^)

Messages here

Network television schedules

The first "NBC Week" was in 1965, not in 1964, and My Favorite Martian premiered in 1963. I know you mean well, but that doesn't mean you can destroy the feeling of these schedules for the rest of us, especially when you ignore what the newspaper microfilms have to say, or disregard the ratings as listed by classictvhits.com.

Therefore, I am going to have to revert the schedules to what they were before; if you have a problem with that, please take your wrath out in the sandbox.149.175.37.202 (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

All reverted back to your (Firsfron's) version as pure edit-warring vandalism. Anon user should be blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem :) Let me know if I can be of assistance in your updating of the pages. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Listen, wise guy:

I've had too much with your acceptance of the book "Watching TV" as gospel truth. You must refer to newspaper microfilms. They'll show you that there was no "NBC Week" in September 1964.97.120.137.22 (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

About those television schedules

Firs-

I realize now that you're too crazy about color coding the schedules, so I'm taking your suggestion and will show each of the top 30 programs of each season with its respective (rank/rating), as determined by Nielsen Media Research. I intend to use the ratings charts at classictvhits.com as my primary source.

In addition, if I find anything in your commentary to these schedules that I feel doesn't ring true, I'll let you know as reasonably as possible so you can dip into the appropriate further research.97.120.137.22 (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I discovered in the Brooks/Marsh book that Arthur Godfrey's Talent Scouts and You Bet Your Life were actually tied for 3rd in 1953-54, so I added bronze to the latter; I hope you don't mind. By the way, I'm using a capital "T" in the rankings to indicate a tie.97.120.137.22 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I had to include Rawhide in the 1958-59 schedule because it finished in the top 30. Please try to understand.97.120.137.22 (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In 1963-64 The Fight of the Week wasn't new; it was just on a new night. It had been running on Saturdays under that title since 1960. IYMK. these were the shows that "the new ABC" listed as new in fall 1963:

• The Travels of Jaimie McPheeters
• Arrest and Trial
• 100 Grand
• The Outer Limits
• Breaking Point
• The Greatest Show on Earth
• The Fugitive
• The Patty Duke Show
• Channing
• The Jimmy Dean Show
• Sid Caesar alternating with Edie Adams
• Burke's Law
• The Farmer's Daughter
• The Jerry Lewis Show

I also suggest that you look further into Castleman/Podriazik's TV Schedule Book which does include mid-season schedules.97.120.137.22 (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Independence, Iowa

First off, let me state that this was an error on my part: I seem to have looked at the article about Independence, Kansas, as "governmentally independent" is a Kansas term that really does apply to the Kansas city, and I have a vague memory of thinking that this was a Kansas township.

Secondly — this Census Bureau map says the same thing as the map you provided. If you open this file and look at cities that really are separate from their township, such as Waterloo, you'll see a slightly more solid city border and a little º next to the city name, but neither is present in this map's version of Independence.

Between what I've said in the first and the second paragraphs, I've realised my error and reverted to what you wrote. Thanks for pointing out the error! Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Megalosaurus vertebra.JPG

File:Megalosaurus vertebra.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Megalosaurus vertebra.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

'peton

Have I stirred up some kind of controversy with C/Galverpeton? I'm grateful you stopped by, but I'm wondering why this incident is getting so much attention. :P Abyssal (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Constant vandalism and disruption

I don't understand why you admins turn blind to Tajik (talk · contribs) when he goes around use sockpuppets in your faces and vandalize pages after pages. Is Misplaced Pages some type of gang related website? User:Tajik is removing sourced material from articles, this is vandalism and you admins allow it. He uses the excuse "falsification and POVs" but it's really him doing those if you concentrate on his edits. These are only few examples: , , , , He and Inuit18 (talk · contribs) (sockpuppet of Anoshirawan) pops up as a tag-team and usually at the same time, I believe that account is shared by him and someone in USA who's English is not so great. It's so strange that he comes everyday but only edit very little, so it's very likely that he's using sockpuppets to evade his 1 RR restriction. Tajik pretends that he is against POVs but it's he that is a POV pusher."The author - in this case al-Biruni - is referring to the Suleiman Mountains. In that case, it is highly probable that he was referring to Pashtuns, because he had described them as a "Hindu people" before.... Tajik (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". It's very clear for readers here that Tajik hates Pashtuns with great passion so he wants to give them a new history which would make them being Hindus when all the scholars, history books, encyclopedias, and the Pashtuns themselves, disagree. There is "zero traces" of any Hindu culture among the Pashtuns. Anyway, Tajik was blocked 17 times and banned for a whole year but he doesn't seem to care about any of that, he just wants to remove things from articles that he doesn't agree with or doesn't like. This is a serious problem and you guys should put an end to it. I also believe Muxlim (talk · contribs) is him.

Mapusaurus

Hello Firsfron,

Thankyou for mentioning that you have to provide a source to your text.I will do this from now on.I have read the links you provided and i understand completely (i think).

Regards,

Dan6534661 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan6534661 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Teleocrater"

Hi, Firs;

My regular library only got Annales de Paleontologie through 1996, and it doesn't look like they've signed up for online access. That said, I've been surprised before. I will probably be doing a library run next Friday and I'll be sure to check it out. J. Spencer (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Fourth television network

Hey Firs!! Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner - work really got nuts on me the past month. I found several newspaper articles that may be of interest to you, which I copied. Although they should be public domain, I got them from the archive site I'm subscribed to, so I don't want to post them here. If you're comfortable doing so, send me an e-mail and I'll respond with the articles attached. My wikipedia handle at q.com serves as my e-mail address. Otherwise, we can figure something else out. dhett 22:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

How odd! I never received your e-mail. Let me try one more time, just in case I misled you: dhett at q dot com. dhett 18:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

HA!! Got it this time! That address looks familiar - I probably should have scoured my archive and could have sent you the articles last week. Oh well, they're on their way. dhett 18:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello and sorry

Hello Firsfron i'm brisio and im sorry 4 modifyin these page without sources At first i didnt realize u were da one who gave me a "welcome", thank u

I'm a boy interested in palaeontology and id like helpin wikipedia pages by uploadin them and make people think wiki is ver accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio (talk • contribs) 05:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Name"?

I know the scientific name should type in Name. But i see lots of scientific name in wikipedia were type in "Name". Why?

Is that official rules that Nomen nudum, Nomen oblitum, Nomen dubium should type in "Name"? or it is just a wikipedia rules? 01:43, 26 Nov. 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilfish1962 (talk • contribs)

Astrodon

i read WP:STUB. i'm still not sure why this article wouldn't be under the purview of sauropodomorph-stubs. what am i not getting? Μετανοιδ (talk, email)

i don't see why a stub tag shouldn't be added to an entry that is clearly rated as "stub-class". please explain. Μετανοιδ Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 17:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

96.239.237.62

Hi, Firs;

I noticed you reverted 96.239.237.62 (talk · contribs) on "Bayosaurus". Having fixed a string of their edits this morning, I am 99% certain that this is the latest version of an editor who was recently blocked at 96.242.198.33 (talk · contribs) for inserting false dates, locations, and other information to paleo articles, and false episodes and voice actors to television shows. Something to keep an eye on, I suppose. J. Spencer (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on that! J. Spencer (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your indefinite semi-protection of some chemical elements

Hello,

Following a recent specific case at Vanadium, I have reviewed the semi-protection status of all chemical element articles, and found that many of them were either not warranted or have excessive protection lengths.

Keeping in mind that it was concluded that Vanadium's protection length of 6 months was too long given the circumstances, and that it has been shortened to 24 hours, I invite you to reconsider the indefinite semi-protection you granted to Iron, Calcium and Beryllium.

Please bear in mind Misplaced Pages's semi-protection policy, specifically its suggestion that indefinite protections should be considered only as a last resort after other measures have failed.

You may also want to review other indefinite protections that you have granted in the past. Thank you. 124.87.98.194 (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi 124,

I semi-protected these articles because of user requests to do so. There were simply few or even no good IP edits to the articles in question. I'm not sure what other measures you would prefer to have stopped the rampant IP vandalism occurring on Iron, but it's nice to see the article has actually been improved during the months it's been semi-protected: previously, logged in edits were only removing the IP junk: the vandalism was not only adding junk to the article, it wasn't allowing anyone time to make any good contributions. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Please reply on your talk page if at all possible, so we can keep this conversation in one place.

"I semi-protected these articles because of user requests to do so. There were simply few or even no good IP edits to the articles in question"

These reasons per se are not sufficient for an indefinite semi-protection. Please have a look at the policy and guidelines.

In the case of Iron, although I think your argument is debatable (in particular arguing that vandalism was completely stopping development on that article seems extreme), it is certainly reasonable. Then again, I feel pretty much the same way as User:Griffinofwales did when s/he asked you to reconsider your indefinite semi-protection of Nitrogen (see User_talk:Firsfron/Archive_13#semi_protection_of_nitrogen).

Your explanation is somehow weakened in the case of Calcium, which was arguably not suffering from unbearable vandalism, did not have any previous termed protections, and was seeing meaningful non-autoconfirmed contributions. When it comes to Beryllium however, the levels of vandalism and contributions did not seem to justify a protection at all, let alone an indefinite one.

The problem with indefinite protection is that everybody tends to forget about it. I think that the rationale behind this aspect of our policy is that the vast majority of non-autoconfirmed users wishing to make "good" changes can't be bothered to post them in the discussion page (assuming they realise there is one), let alone look up which admin protected the page, and even less likely figure out how to request in the appropriate fora to unprotect it.

Therefore, I would kindly ask you to be more careful with indefinite protection in the future, and again to reconsider your other past indefinite protections. Thank you. 205.228.108.57 (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm well aware of the semi-protection policy. I semi-protected Beryllium with the summary Excessive vandalism: persistent daily IP vandalism. Contrary to your claim above ("the levels of vandalism and contributions did not seem to justify a protection at all"), the article was indeed suffering from persistent daily IP vandalism. Please note that the article had been vandalized three times on March 10th, twice on March 9th, once on March 8th, once on March 6th, once on March 4th, five times on February 26th, once on February 25th, once on February 22nd, etc. While there were a couple of "good" IP edits, nearly all of it was garbage, and all of the vandalism came from non-registered users. I stand by my protection of the article, and am gratified to see that the article has improved since the IP disturbance has stopped. Semi-protecting the article has allowed logged-in editors the chance to improve the article, instead of spending their entire time reverting the garbage. If some other admin is willing to un-semi-protect, I won't re-semi-protect, but I'm not going to unprotect an article which has clearly benefited from semi-protection. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll perform semi-protection over blocking IPs most of the time, given that accidents have happened in the past. Semi-protection means anyone can still edit, they must first make an account. It is an essential policy if editors are to spend time enlarging and improving articles rather than just reverting vandalism. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cas. I do sympathize with IP editors wanting to make good contributions, but enough's enough. There's no way an article can improve while under daily vandalism. There just isn't much energy to revert every single day and add sourced, verifiable content from reliable sources on articles which get that level of vandalism. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, between February 22nd and March 11th when I semi-protected the article, there were 40 edits, nearly all of them IP vandalism or removal of said vandalism by logged in editors. The article made almost no improvement. One typo ("alleric") was fixed, one uncited sentence ("Beryllium has also been proposed as a cladding material for nuclear fuel, due to its combination of mechanical, chemical, and nuclear properties.") was added, and a {{fact}} tag was added to the end of every paragraph. That was the "progress" under no protection. Compare the next 40 edits made under semi-protection: Three in-line citations, several paragraphs of sourced text, and two science links are added during those 40 edits. It's pretty clear semi-protecting this article only improved the content, allowing serious editors relief from the vandalism. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thescelosaurus

Hi, Firs;

Thanks for the news! I don't speak Hungarian, but I trust that they got it right.

Oddly enough, I ran into "Teleocrator" a few days ago researching the Portland Formation. I was looking for information on Anchisaurus, Galton and Cluver 1976 is about anchisaurids, and there it was. They were under the impression it was named by Charig in 1967, and provided a species (the former "Thecodontosaurus" alophos Haughton 1932; they spelled the species alphos for some reason), a specimen (two cervicals, SAM-10654), provenance (Anisian-age Manda Formation of Tanzania), and a classification (pseudosuchian). Now I have to wonder if they'd didn't accidentally name the genus, although I don't think they included a diagnosis. J. Spencer (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

it's -> its_its-Welcome_to_Firsfron's_talk_page-2009-12-04T12:51:00.000Z">

I see you have corrected one of these recently. Hopefully you sometimes go on the hunt for them. I'd offer you up a barnstar for it, but simple appreciation will have to suffice as I'm too busy correcting this stuff to design any :) Best regards and thanks for your many good works over the years. LilHelpa (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Oooh.. that was on a "to it's" campaign! Mucho kudos!! LilHelpa (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)_its"> _its">

Drive-by tagging

Thanks. I'm going to quote your message on my user page as a reminder to me, if that's all right with you. Robert K S (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Your dinosaur article résumé is most impressive and your work is much appreciated. Robert K S (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Program guides

Hi. I semi-randomly selected you (Firsfron, Masem, Protonk) as major participants in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive 30#Per station television schedules, which I didn't follow closely. The subject has arisen again at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Forbidding programme guides, and I was wondering if any of you could give a short/neutral summary at the VPump, of what the WT:NOT thread's consensus was, if any. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Tawa (dinosaur)

On 11 December 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Tawa (dinosaur), which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

Happy Holidays

Ret.Prof (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Re: Cope

Letting you know that I've formatted what you've added. Thanks for the additional content :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome back.  :) Woogee (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your link not working?

You posted to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#.22Extinction_dagger.22_guideline_needed:
"There was a past discussion about daggers back in 2005 on Wikispecies, here, where the cross-like shape of the dagger was deemed offensive by non-Christians",
where "here" was (I think) http://species.wikimedia.org/Village_pump/Archive_2#Extinct_dates . This seems not to be working, and I posted a note about this to the WP:Paleontology discussion.
Wassup with that? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC) -- The link provided (Wikispecies:Village_pump/Archive_2#Extinct_dates)

Cass District Library Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for the nice words left for me for the work, I am doing to try and document some of the unique history and historical relevant part of Cass County and Southwest Lower Michigan. It just happens that I was up in Michigan for the holidays and I was able to snap some images for the articles. If you get a chance take a look. Jsgoodrich (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Cats

Don't worry, they're only temporary. I needed to know how many of each article there are to base some splitting decisions on, and to see how many I have yet to add info on the species content (these are in the category:Formations with Y dinosaur genera). Abyssal (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Abyssal (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just editing this to remove your talk page from the maintenence category. Sorry for the interruption. :D Abyssal (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Plateosaurus

Plateosaurus is ready for Good Article, methinks ;) Thank you very much again for your invaluable help! HMallison (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Firs! :) HMallison (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern about User:Station Agent 836

This user has been removing the "The" from The CW Television Network just like now indef block sockmaster User:Rollosmokes. Since Rollosmokes was the only one who did this removal, I am beginning to think that Rollosmokes has come back with a new sockpuppet. Could you ask for a checkuser and possibly a range block to keep him out. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI started here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)