User talk:Sanfazer

Description
! Why are you still here? Do you want candy? Is that why you're still here? Oh, you wanna talk to me! That's it, isn't it? Well, then, you could've given me a call, like I told you. Never mind. Simply click the Add topic button and say whatever you want to. But be nice. I'll probably click the Edit button a few minutes later and give you a reply. Suggestion: If you have some spare time, try figuring out how similar these Description sections are. It'll blow your mind. Additionally, in case you wanna view this page's History for some reason, click the link I've just provided you with, instead of using the regular, boring way you're accustomed to. (I love linking!)

On Rules
Hi there, I saw you commented on Nrc8127's talk page about him/her breaking the rules on changing British to American. Ofcourse you're right and it's awesome that you take responsibility to tell him/her in such a polite manner, but I just wanted to drop by and point out that you could also have reverted the actual change. I did it now, so don't worry, I just wanted to come by and say that. Oh, and ofcourse your change of terrible to horrible doesn't count as breaking the rules as it's a direct quote, but I guessed that was sarcasm. :) Aki 01:37, 5 January 2011 (CET)
 * LOL. Actually, it wasn't sarcasm at all. I meant the comma and the quotation marks! The comma was inside the quotation marks in one sentence, and outside in another sentence. All in the same paragraph. I was just trying so standardise it a bit, and so I chose the way I like best. (Should've written an edit summary, I guess.) Sanfazer 18:48, 5 January 2011 (CET)

Wikisimpsons
Hi. Actually, I was aware that The Infosphere and Wikisimpsons were affiliates (in fact, I have an account with them as well). I just felt that the Wikipedia article I linked was more informative about the episode in question. But thank you for the information about affiliate linking to them, since I was in the dark about that. -- DeepSpaceHomer 19:27, 20 January 2011 (CET)
 * I thought you wouldn't know simply because you registered in December, and the affiliation took place in November. But, of course, that means nothing. Oh, and, don't worry about that Simpsons article business. I think it pretty much only links to Wikipedia, anyway. Which means you did the right thing. Sanfazer 23:39, 20 January 2011 (CET)

Explanation
All right, I can explain everything. First of all, I'm American, and so I don't know British grammar. I know what I was raised to know, and that would be American grammar. I had no idea that the grammar fixes I was making were correct. So you can't really blame me for my ignorance. As for deleting your post, it's sort of embarrassing to have something like that in public for everyone to see, and I didn't think it was such a bad thing to do. Anyways, sorry for all that. Gmlw 22:13, 22 January 2011 (CET)
 * That's okay. But I don't consider it to be embarassing myself. It's like you said. You can't blame someone for doing something they didn't know was wrong. (I hope you know it's wrong now, though, so I can blame you in the future.) So the point of posts like mine is not to remark that one's method is flawed, but to improve it. Sanfazer 17:44, 23 January 2011 (CET)

Your edit
I just saw your edit and I'm a little confused. I understand what you did but the reason I changed the article before wasn't it's appearance. It was because I couldn't find any articles that listed where the quotes came from. I've checked ten other articles and none of them, no matter the size, listed where the quotes came from. Is what you did a personal preference or to bring that article to the Infosphere's standards? Teyrn of Highever 01:46, 19 February 2011 (CET)
 * I haven't seen many Quotes sections using the Et template lately, so I don't think that's a standard. But I'm sure three of the episodes this one mentioned are correct: Zoidberg scaring the people in the pool (2ACV05), Yivo addressing everyone in existence in the church (TBWABB), and Randy talking about his poodle as Bender and Amy are trying to legalise robosexual marriage (6ACV04). Also, did you check the transcripts? Sanfazer 01:58, 19 February 2011 (CET)
 * I'm not disputing where the quotes came from or their correctness. I am asking why you even listed the episodes they came from. As I said, I can't find an article that lists where each quote is from. No quote section mentions which episode or comic the lines are from. No matter the size, they just give the quote. Teyrn of Highever 02:04, 19 February 2011 (CET)
 * Oh! Yeah, I just thought it would be more thorough that way. It's a personal preference, like you said, and, in my opinion, not hurtful to the wiki/reader. Articles are only required to be consistent within themselves. Sanfazer 02:55, 20 February 2011 (CET)
 * No, it's not hurtful at all, just seems weird that Randy's article is the only one I could find that had it. Teyrn of Highever 02:59, 20 February 2011 (CET)
 * I know. Hey, if you really want it out, feel free to remove it. I'm not a selfish guy. Sanfazer 03:04, 20 February 2011 (CET)

Channel 4√4
I saw that you undid my edit. While I understand why you did it, I think that your math is off. What you suggested in the infobox would be the square root of the fourth root of 4 or the eighth root of 4. This would be about 1.19. According to two different scientific calculators and the physicist who lives next door, my math was correct. The fourth root of 4 and the square root of 2 are equal. Teyrn of Highever 01:10, 21 February 2011 (CET)
 * Also, looking at your edit, you did not remove that 4√4 equals 1.41. This leaves the issue with √2 equaling 1.41. That point can be easily checked on a basic, non-scientific calculator. Teyrn of Highever 01:32, 21 February 2011 (CET)
 * You're right. My math really is off. When I first cleaned up the page days ago, I was interpreting 4√4 as the 4th root of 4 (4√4), but today I interpreted it as 4 times the square root of 4 (4*√4). This is a result of me not being used to studying math in the computer, which can let me down at times. Sorry for the trouble, man. (PS: My suggestion was in the edit summary, not the infobox.) Sanfazer 01:55, 21 February 2011 (CET)
 * We all have off days. Like when I said infobox instead of edit summary. Teyrn of Highever 02:08, 21 February 2011 (CET)
 * LOL. I suppose so. Sanfazer 23:04, 21 February 2011 (CET)

500 edits
Me again. It finally happened. I reached 500 edits. I don't know which is scariest: the fact that I got to 500 edits, the fact that it took me 6 months to do so, or the fact that you've done over 500 (560 to be precise) in the last 30 days. Don't you ever sleep? Teyrn of Highever 04:29, 21 February 2011 (CET)
 * Contrary to what my user page states, I do need to sleep. I just don't realise the importance of having all my neurons working properly, and as a consequence frequently stay up late. Those irregularities are bound to cause weirdness like the above. (It isn't just the lack of computer math study! And I'm not joking, about any of this.) But try not to freak out over the 560 edits. That's mostly due to my habit of keeping an eye on everyone ' s edits. Which some might consider a bit arrogant. Sanfazer 23:04, 21 February 2011 (CET)

Episode Infobox
Was the only reason you undid this edit because of the amount of articles that would need to be changed? Is this format more preferable? Teyrn of Highever 22:41, 7 March 2011 (CET)
 * In my opinion, yes, it is. (I don't call the shots around here, so I can't say for sure.) And yes, that was the only reason. I did the edit as a test, inspired by another edit, and wasn't even certain that it would work. Are you asking because you're willing to go over all those episode articles? (Was the Produciton thing not enough?) Sanfazer 00:18, 9 March 2011 (CET)
 * I am willing but I don't want a repeat of what went wrong. Don't want to go through all that work for nothing. I would prefer to wait for someone important to say yea or nay, first. Teyrn of Highever 00:54, 9 March 2011 (CET)
 * Me too. Maybe notify them in their talk pages? Sanfazer 00:57, 9 March 2011 (CET)
 * Have anyone specific in mind? Not many seem to be online that often. Half of our administrators haven't been on for months, at least. Teyrn of Highever 00:58, 9 March 2011 (CET)
 * Aki, Quolnok, and Svip are the most active. Svip is usually quick to reply. Sanfazer 01:07, 9 March 2011 (CET)
 * We have a verdict. Teyrn of Highever 01:48, 9 March 2011 (CET)
 * Giant news, everyone. Should we do as we did with the year articles? I get the first half, and you, the second? Vice-versa's also fine. Sanfazer 02:00, 9 March 2011 (CET)
 * Guess so. I'll start from the Holiday Spectacular. Just need to make sure to follow what Svip said. Teyrn of Highever 02:05, 9 March 2011 (CET)
 * Start from "Ressurection". Remember that the problem came from 6ACV14. Sanfazer 02:07, 9 March 2011 (CET)
 * Found it. Teyrn of Highever 02:08, 9 March 2011 (CET)
 * I love how we planned out how to do this but both aren't doing anything. Is that intentional? I was waiting for your edit so I could mirror it and don't end up making a bad edit in fifty places. Teyrn of Highever 02:21, 9 March 2011 (CET)
 * When you start editing, stop at the end of season 3. That would divide it to 54 for you and 60 for me. Pretty even and I did promise to help. It's just that I've had a string of questionable edits recently and I'd like a model to work off of before I inflict too much damage. Teyrn of Highever 02:36, 9 March 2011 (CET)
 * Nonsense! (Plus, I don't think there's room for damage in such an easy project.) But deal. I'll do the first three seasons. I was thinking we'd do 57 episodes each, but this way it won't be confusing. Sanfazer 02:50, 9 March 2011 (CET)

So I don't know if you were on, but I posted on my talk page what Svip wrote on his. I made an attempt and did some test edits but couldn't get it to work. Since you have more experience with this website, hopefully you can figure it out. Teyrn of Highever 15:47, 10 March 2011 (CET)
 * The discussion continues at User talk:Teyrn of Highever.

New New York Historical Society building
Can you chime in on the talk page for this article? You made it and I'm a bit confused about what you have done. Teyrn of Highever 23:36, 22 March 2011 (CET)
 * The discussion continues at Talk:New New York Historical Society building.

Your Promotion
Congratulations. Unless you didn't want it, then "I'm sorry?" The preceding unsigned comment was written by Teyrn of Highever.
 * No, I totally wanted it. Thanks for dropping by! Sanfazer 21:07, 4 April 2011 (CEST)

Protections
When I was performing my recent edits, I noticed that the transcript for Space Pilot 3000 was protected. Svip protected it claiming that he saw no reason for unregistered users to edit transcripts. However, this is the one of the only transcripts that is protected. It may be the only one, I haven't checked them all. Do you think that this page should be unprotected or that the other transcripts should be protected for the same reason? I was going to post on Svip's page but I know that you are online and it would be better to get multiple admins opinions on this, anyway. Teyrn of Highever 22:37, 4 April 2011 (CEST)
 * I'm undecided. Most of the edits that need to be made to these pages are the creation of links to existing pages and renamings to fit these pages. In my opinion, registered users would be better for this for the simple fact that they spend more time on the site and know more about the pages that already exist. Having said that, if you exclude the two of us and DeepSpaceHomer, many of the changes made are by IPs rather than registered users. Vandalism is usually quickly fixed and you have to take into account the fact that you can't protect every single page. Teyrn of Highever 22:37, 4 April 2011 (CEST)
 * I'm afraid I can't be much help here, Teyrn. If Svip protected the 1ACV01 transcript and didn't do anything about the rest, then his two cents are the ones worth being given. But you're right that it doesn't make sense to protect every single page. Sanfazer 17:05, 5 April 2011 (CEST)

Crew professions
I noticed the edit you made to the Mark Hamill article, and that made me think of something. The crew infobox says that the listed profession should be what the person in question does on the show. But when I've created or edited a crew article, I sometimes state all their professions, period. So should the standard be to list the professions both on and off the show? -- DeepSpaceHomer 01:11, 11 April 2011 (CEST)