User talk:Darcyj
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] See My Vest
Great job! This is a hilarious, yet somehow factual article. I don't know how long it'll stay up, and I'm not sure what the fair use laws are on posting the entire lyrics, and I really don't care. I particularly enjoyed the analysis of how many and what kinds of animals are needed for each garment. (I came across the article because I saw Beauty and the Beast on stage tonight, and my friends and I only remembered three lines of the song.) Anyways, I laughed, so thanks! --ByeByeBaby 09:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Cricket
I saw that you have an interest in cricket. You may consider joining the project. Thanks GizzaChat © 07:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LOTR revert...my error
My error...sorry. We must have been editing at the same time. The edit I was trying to rv was this one which you can see was definitely trolling. I apologise for you getting caught in the loop. By all means restore your text. Cheers and take care....and again sorry. Anger22 04:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- No worries! Thanks for the quick reply, and keep up the good work. Darcyj 05:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Cricket Batting Graphs
Thanks for offering to help, but I really don't feel I need any. You are correct that I have a lot of graphs, but most of them are players who have retired, so of course they don't need any updating. I generally update the relevent graphs at the end of each test series. It doesn't actually take that long and the time between updates is often quite lengthy. Plus, I quite enjoy doing them! Thanks again for your offer, but I'm quite happy to do them by myself. Raven4x4x 05:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Star Trek is indeed Science Fiction
User:Nadirali posted a bit of a diatribe on the talk page for the main Star Trek article. I answered his concerns on his own talk page as follows:
Sir, I have read and noted your concerns on the Star Trek main article talk page. I am not going to call you a "moron" outright, although I may just question your motives in this case. This is not a reflection on your intelligence nor your capacity for rational thought (which it would be if I did call you a moron), but rather a rebuke against your provocative statements on that talk page which are clearly calculated to incite.
Star Trek is science fiction because it involves a narrative setting which differs from the present-day real world in terms of technology and futurology. The futurology aspect is "scientific" because the narrative specifically invokes scientific advances and discoveries as the motive force behind the development of society to the state seen in the stories. That is, economic and religious factors are negligible or absent factors in the narrated future as depicted in Star Trek; the characters do the things they do because they have more advanced scientific and technological knowledges, resources and tools than we do in this present day. This is axiomatically "science fiction".
You have - fairly, in my opinion - cited examples of storylines and narrative events which appear to have no scientific basis, eg Charlie Evans. However those things, whilst better classified as fantasy in their own right, do not alter the classification of the whole as science fiction. The characters in the episode Charlie X travel in a starship and do many other things which are science-based fiction.
You provocatively cite something which clearly irritates you personally, being the outrageous claim of Trekkies that the cell phone was invented thanks to Star Trek. Bringing up this one example - which is refutable by simply pointing to Get Smart or to Dick Tracy - diminishes your attempt to puncture Star Trek's scientific credentials, because you specifically failed to refute it. You merely pooh-poohed it, which is not a valid argument. It is well documented that the scientists and inventors of today have found inspiration in the fiction of the past, of which Star Trek is a part. The enthusiasm of Trekkies to promote the importance of their own in this process is perfectly understandable, and should not cause you any unease. If you don't agree with such fan statements, then good for you. I also think the importance of Star Trek in the development of late-20th century technology is overstated - the Apollo Program had many times the degree of influence.
I am disturbed by this statement of yours -
| Forget I even asked.I came looking for answers(I even pleaded for answers only) not discussions.And both times I got lectures.So forget I even asked since I probably won;t find the answers i seek |
- because your frustration (at being unable to engage Star Trek fans in a debate) clearly blinded you to the fact that you were the first to give a lecture. If you wanted answers, you should have asked a short and constructive question instead of sprinkling your lecture with merely rhetorical questions. "Where's the science in that?" is not a question seeking information, it is a rebuke phrased as a question and will usually not encourage meanignful answers.
This statement was buried in your lecture: I'd like someone to answer what Star Trek has to do with science at all. I conclude here by saying, I hope you now have a good answer, and that you can live with it. Darcyj 13:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Star Trek is actually sci-fi/fantasy
It was not my intention at all to provoke any Trekkies or to trash Star Trek in any way.(The only trashing it deserves is it is exagerrating the "science" in it or better "abusing scientific terms and concepts" as Dr Micheal Wong puts it.).I only provided a long list of examples,so my point is understood better and not rebuffed as a "lecture". True,Star Trek may have science in it but the magical elements are too significant to go unnoticed,(as I stated almost every episode and not just charlie X has it)which is why it should be classified as science fiction/fantasy. The "unease" that I have is that people(especially gullable people) who are not too well educated in science and mathamatics will start precieving Star Trek to be reality as Trekkies always promote it to be.I believed all this much before I even stumbled accross Dr Wong's page.(Whom by the way has recieved death threats and threats of injuries from Trekkies for the things he proves). I never said Trekkies are not allowed to promote their enthusiasm.Trekkies can call themselves Bush haters for all I care.But crossing the line is where they try to impose their beliefs that Star Trek is "science" or "the future"(thus misguiding people) or that "Star Trek rocks compared to Star Wars"(That's a POV by the way).Give me a break. Please you spelled meaningful as meanignful.So before checking others' minor spelling mistakes,please check your own.Nadirali 00:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali (just erase my statement from the Star Trek talk page if it still "disturbs" you)Thanks.
- I'm going to leave the above in place, as a simple guide to how not to layout text in any written media. Darcyj 04:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome
Good to see yet another rscer here :-) Tintin (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hey hey! Reckon we need an article for rec.sport.cricket? Darcyj 11:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:CRIC
Thanks so much for helping with the succession box. Happy to go with whatever consensus says re the positioning. It'll be nice for cricket to lead the way with its WP treatment of world record holders, though I totally agree with whoever posted that we need to be restrained in just how prominent (or not) the records are that we include as successions. --Dweller 11:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- No problemo, cricket is a passion of mine, and I have a mind to a systematic improvement of every WP cricket-related article. I have just used the same succession box editing technique on Greg Chappell to add his career total runscoring record achievements. Darcyj 12:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Darcyj, please stop adding those succession boxes. Can we just establish that there is a consensus to have them first. At least 3 people don't think so. —Moondyne 13:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK. Will hold. Darcyj 23:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ponting
Hello there Darcy. I created a early years section and put the nickname in there. In general, I tend to dislike having nicknames in the lead, unless it is used almost continuosly, like Ataturk or Thorpedo/Thorpey. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
