User talk:Lots42/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hi Lots42/Archive 1, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are a few helpful links to start you off: Avoiding common mistakes, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, Policies and guidelines, Help, Merging pages.

If you need help or are curious about something, feel free to ask on my talk page or the village pump. You can sign your name and a date stamp on comments using four tildes (~~~~). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, and I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian! Andre (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Hulks strength

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. The reason for this is that the Wikipedia Comic book Project policy prohibits the use of adjectives such as vast, immense, or great. These terms are subjective because they arnt clear. Thefro552 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just some advice when posting wikilinks for comic book characters. A lot of characters have common-word names, and if you link to just that word, you probably won't get what you're looking for. For example, see: Wolverine, Cable, Angel, Nova, Justice. Note that none of those links come anywhere near close to linking to the comic characters (even if they link to disambiguation pages, that's still one more link you have to click to get to where you're going). I've fixed a few articles that you've edited, but in future you might want to check to see if the links you're posting actually work before saving a page; try hitting the "Show Preview" button instead.

Good luck in future editing!  :)

Citations

It is better to request citations than to simply delete an entire section. --RandomHumanoid 03:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding subsections to 'Other versions'

I appreciate that you've added the Mutant X sections to Doc Samson and Mister Fantastic, but those sections look a heck of a lot better if the subheading in them are alphabetized. I already took care of that for you, but in the future please add them in alphabetical order. I encourage you to continue adding sections like that, it's very helpful, but be mindful of the layout when you do it.

Sidenote: You say that you want Mickey Fondozzi and Archie Corrigan pages to be made. Why not make them yourself? If you don't know how to make a page and need help, just post in my talk page and I'll help you(though I won't be on Wikipedia over the next few weeks). -Freak104 17:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be able to create a full page right away, that's why we are allowed to edit them. :-) Give me some basic information about Mickey and I can start the page. Then you can add the rest yourself. I'll put a stub tag on it, and hopefully others will help it grow. -Freak104 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Mickey. Okay, in War Zone #1, drawn by John Romita JR, the Punisher shoots up a bunch of made men, leaving one alive on purpose. He tortures this guy, mentally (shows him a hot piece of metal, shove a harmless popscicle into his back) until he cracks and agrees to work with Frank. Mickey introduces him to the Carbone crime family as his, Mickey's, cousin, Johnny Tower. Mickey gets one up on Frank by implying he is a moron and that Mickey speaks for him. Eventually all the Carbones except Rosalie are dead. Mickey gets involved with the Punisher again and again and again and guess what, again. Usually against his will.
Oh yeah, a character based off him appears in the Travolta Punisher movie.
P.S. How do I put my name down on the WikiComics Project name section? I can't figger it out at all (in fact, a whole -lot- of the Comics Project section is confusing as banannas)

Wonder Man

And now you see how pointless it is to try to edit one of "Asgardian's chosen" articles, because he will just revert any change he doesn't like. 204.153.84.10 22:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


(Edit; to Asgardian: No flamewars on my talk page please)


I gave you the answer you asked for. The other user made the silly comment and I asked them to desist as I was mindful that it is your page. Can't have it both ways, friend.

Asgardian 09:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not silly at all, and has been pointed out by numerous editors on talk pages for various articles. See the talk pages for Whizzer and Vision (Marvel Comics) for just the latest in a long series of Asgardian's antics. 204.153.84.10 18:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

1) Where can I read up on doing references better? You know, the little HTML you click on and it takes you to the bottom of the article and it says 'Spiderman #442 July 9 Whatever'

Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes are probably the best guide, you need to wrap in special tags the text which forms the source for your information, and place it near the info it references. If you have any queries don't hesitate to ask.

2) What is the right amount of references in a comic book article?

As many as are required. Generally, each source used to write the article should be listed, so that people can verify that what is asserted in the article matches the sources provided, presents them fairly and isn't original research.

3) Is it frowned upon to delete disruptive comments off your own topic page?

Yes, per WP:TALK.

4) I did get all verklempt and I did do a full revert on Asgardian's changes on the Wrecking Crew article. Was the reverting in and of itself a bad thing? I know, I should have stepped away from the whole mess for a while. Acting while ticked off is never a good thing, even if the results are nuetral.

We have an idea on Wikipedia of making a bold edit, and then when it is reverted we discuss. So in part you were wrong, but Asgardian was also wrong in not opening a discussion after the first reversion.

5) When I make a comment on a discussion page, do I need to make a little summary in the box that usually appears down below?

Edit summaries are required for article edits. When editing a talk page it is usually helpful to use them to indicate who you are replying to, so that anyone watching the page will know whether they need to respond. Hope that all helps. Steve block Talk 11:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and effort. Lots42

Warwolves

Hey, thanks for adding to Warwolves, and a number of other articles written by me and other people. Thanks to your addition to Warwolves, I think this was the first article I wrote that got rated as a Start rather than a Stub.  :) BOZ 20:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging words, they are always appreciated. Half the reason I like Wiki is that despite what Wired says, there's just so much information -lacking- online. I like to know I'm not the only one who can recheck what's what without tracking down the comic. Lots42 23:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

**Laughing my a$$ off**

Totally agree with your comment on your recent edit comment on Amalgam Comics. Its always that one damn typo.... LoL. :D Zidel333 03:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mathemanic

Thanks for the help! When there's an issue of copyvio on a character, I much prefer the tactic that some editors use of removing all the bad text, rather than deleting the whole article. That forces anyone who wants to improve it to start the whole thing over rather than just make fixes!  :) BOZ 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Conviction

Thanks for trimming down "Conviction". So many of those articles are SO wordy, it's daunting to even start the process of getting them to a reasonable length. So thanks! Kweeket 06:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Somnambulist

What copyright did the expanded summary violate? Kweeket 17:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In researching your question more throughly, I have discovered a vast contradiction in Wiki-policy, so I shall be backing away from the whole topic for some time until I can figure out what in the name of fish sandwhiches is going on. Lots42 09:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this is going to make me sound like a big dork, but just what -is- Wiki's policy on the hugely extensive plot summariers we have seen in the Angel TV series section? I know, this question doesn't make sense but I'm confused to, I just did some research and I've discovered a huge contradictory policy. Lots42 09:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it might help if I linked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot seems to be saying 'The more detailed the better' and that just doesn't sit right. Of course, my attempts to find one of those crazy 'This plot is too long' warnings I've used to see everywhere has failed. Lots42 09:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm not an expert in Wiki policy by any means, but the plot guidelines for television episodes say "As a rough guide... no more than ten words per minute of screen time. For example, a 45 minute episode would warrant no more than 450 words." The guideline you linked above recommends plot summaries be "between 400 and 700 words." So I think a reasonable length for a 50-minute Angel episode is no more than 500 words, unless the episode was more simple than most.
For example, "To Shanshu in L.A." (at 490 words) is acceptable, although I think there is still some extraneous detail that could be easily cut without affecting a reader's understanding. "Eternity" is 540 words, so it's a bit too long. At a whopping 1,840 words, "Blind Date" is verging on copyright violation because the derivative work stands in for the commercial product.
The tag I think you're looking for is {{Plot|date=March 2008}}, which produces this:
Would you want to go through the Angel episodes tagging the ones that exceed 500 words? Actually, what would probably be even more helpful would be to compile a list of the worst offenders (the 1,500+ ones) and post it on the List of Angel episodes talk page or on WikiProject Buffyverse. Kweeket 19:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I asked which copyright the expanded summary of "Somnambulist" violated because I thought you had discovered it was ripped off another site. I see now that your concern was that the excessive plot summary itself was infringing Angel's copyright. I think a 500-word-or-less summary of a 50-minute episode constitutes Fair use under United States copyright law, but you might want to do some digging into copyright issues as well as the Wiki policies surrounding them. Hope this helps! Kweeket 19:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Heya

I noticed you working on some of the minor Morlock characters lately. Someone tried to speedy delete Cybelle (comics) recently, if you want to work on that one.

I've also "rescued" a number of speedy deletes lately, that were deleted due to copyvio. You already noticed Mathemanic lately and built that one up quite well. Notice that I've also re-added Shamrock (comics) for the same reason, and will bring back Plasma (comics) soon which was also speedied for copyvio.

Also, if you're looking for articles on minor characters to work on, I recently added my user page, and will put more characters on there before long.  :)

Keep up the good work! BOZ 16:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I'll think about what you said. But it's only fair to say I've proposed the merging of Scaleface, Blow-Hard and the other related articles into one, they all concerning X-Factor 11. And the only reason I was able to update that is I had the issue with me. I'm not at all familair with the other names you've mentioned. I'll look into it. Lots42 01:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey man, thanks for the work on Plasma - I wasn't that familiar with the character, but I didn't think that article should have been deleted just because someone copied some text from a website; I like it better when an editor just strips the article down to the bare bones, because then at least it doesn't have to be started over from scratch!
I know you won't work on articles you're not familiar with or interested in - usually no one does!  :) I just added a new section on my user page of articles I've started; if you see anything there you'd like to improve, go for it! I know you've worked on a few of them already, so choose whatever you like if any. BOZ 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh, sometimes I go hogwild on a somewhat boring article simply because it's full of mistakes of all imaginable sorts. I'll take a look at your page later. Lots42 16:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions!  :) BOZ 15:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Before jumping on the Bandwagon...

More reading, less assumptions. Who's been doing for what Wikipedia lately?

Asgardian 04:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Who's been doing what lately? Well, for one thing, Asgardian landed himself in arbitration case lately. It's not just a request any more.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae Mediators unanimously agreed to take it on.
And as for "less assumptions" -- Asgardians makes a lot of assumptions about what other people are and aren't assuming. - Wryspy 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

American People category

It's funny that I happened to stumble across this Asgardian thing. I was just coming here to say amen to your remark about the American People category. American people as opposed to what? American aardvarks? - Wryspy 21:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Yep, still active at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian. You might also want to stick a note here about a revived discussion.

Also, here is some history that may be relevant to bring up. If I continue to help regarding this disruptive presence, just ask.--Tenebrae 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Lots42/Archive 1, thank you for your contributions on articles related to Family Guy. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Family Guy, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of Family Guy articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

/ edg ☺ ☭ 23:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hand

Thanks for the heads-up on Hand. Feel free to just hit the "undo" link in the history page (for the page that has been vandalized). If you are intrested in doing this in a more automated way check out these tools: WP:LAVT, WP:TW. They are really handy in general, even if you are not actively working on anti-vandalism activities. —Noah 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi. I know you contribute a good many deal to improving G.I. Joe entries in Wikipedia. I would like to invite you to a fan wikia dedicated to G.I. Joe. wikia.com hosts a great many wikis dedicated to many interests. Somebody has started gijoe.wikia.com but the last update I saw before I logged on was way far back in March 2007 and nobody has been doing anything to improving it. There are currently only 235 articles. However, much of the information are only on loan from My Useless Knowledge or copied verbatim from other sources including Wikipedia.

A fan wikia presents more possibilities and greater freedom than Wikipedia would ever allow us. It would also be nice if we could get others in on this too. --Destron Commander (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tunnelers response

What would that mean if those characters never appeared together in any other media? It's like those that merged all the Pokemon and all the Digimon into one page! Rtkat3 (talk) 8:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, what? Pokemon and Digimon are huge. The tunnelers appeared in what, like three issues total? Lots42 (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

New Enforcers

Didn't the team from Web of Spidey 100, the Outer Circle of the New Enforcers, consist of Blitz, Eel, Vanisher, Dragon Man, Dreadnought, Super-Adaptoid, Plantman, Thermite, and Tangle? 24.148.15.188 (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, nobody's perfect. If you have evidence the team was bigger, put them in. And I'm sure Dragon-Man, Dreadnought and Adaptoid were trying to -kill- Vanisher and his morons. But see above about perfection. Lots42 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't criticizing, just letting you know.  :) Had to leave in a hurry this morning and didn't have time to get my thoughts together on how to phrase that to come across any better. Maybe I'll add that in info into some article(s) later, but probably not any time soon. 24.148.15.188 (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No worries, I knew you were being nice. Lots42 (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI: New Enforcers. 207.229.140.148 (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Amalgam merge

Re: Lack of merge source "What does that mean, please?"
I could only fit so much information into the edit summary.Your question has prompted me to compile an explanation at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Character_alternate_version_guidelines#Reasons_for_Amalgam_removals. You certainly aren't the only person to ask about these deletions. #3 addresses your particular question. I will post links to the past discussions which relate to each point. Please join the discussion on the guidelines talk page to help figure out the best way to deal with the Amalgam characters. Doczilla (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

Why not do it yourself? Freak104 (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Annoyance

It has nothing to do with Wikipedia. That mistake has annoyed me since I started collecting comics (needless to say, that's a long time ago), whether it is in the newspaper or anything where it should have been caught and fixed already. And I have to ask, why/how did you notice those edits of mine? Those were on two pages that are rarely edited, so I doubt you have them on your watchlist. -Freak104 (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess that explains how you noticed. Have you ever thought deleting some from your watchlist? Doesn't such a long (I'm assuming it's long if there are ones on there you don't even realize) watchlist get annoying? -Freak104 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Michael Collins

I think Collins had a distinctive enough career he should get his own page.

Lots42 05:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Up to you.  :) I just expanded the info on both Manning and Collins, so they might be viable as separate pages, if you want to give that a try. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reservoir Dogs

Ha, thanks for your edits, finally someone has the cojones to remove all that crap, I think I'm going to edit it down even further now that we're started.--The Dominator (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The cast was added as a compromise, I'm sorry I reverted your last edit, but there have previously been separate articles for each of the characters and I made a proposal that a cast article be created, we have come to consensus that it should be merged into the film article. I agree that the influence section is a mess, but Reservoir Dogs had a big influence so I suggest toning it down the references to specific films and merge the remainder to reception, Links to other Tarantino films is very trivial though, I questioned that section from the beginning, and you should have seen "Cultural Impact" before I got through with it, it had around forty unsourced bullet points.--The Dominator (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, the citation needed is done by adding {{Fact|date=March 2008}}--The Dominator (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You think we can merge Reservoir Dogs (soundtrack) into Reservoir Dogs? The soundtrack article doesn't have much to say and the "soundtrack" section of the film article literally doesn't have anything to say except linking to the soundtrack.--The Dominator (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to eXistenZ, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Has your account been compromised ??? TINYMARK 00:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ultimates talk page

responding to threads which are months old and finished (because, say, the issue DID come out), doesn't help much. Please check the dates on threads before responding to them. ThuranX (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

??? I was making a Public Service Announcement; the people were talking about adding solicitation info; that is frowned upon. Lots42 (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comics Articles for Deletion

One or more articles you’ve been involved in editing (Melter, Ringer (comics), or others) has been nominated for deletion. If you feel you can make contributions to the article to improve it and make it worth keeping, please do so. BOZ (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's canon.

Anyway, all my edit really does is reverify that he's really damn strong and put more of a absolute level to his strength. Saying he can 'crush someone's skull' or 'throw someone across a room' is all well and good, but giving that strength a value just helps to show how strong he is. HalfShadow (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Handbook considered 'bad', anyway? Barring retcons/character updates, I felt it was a pretty solid guide. Of course the info is pretty old and for a lot of the characters is out of date, but some characters (like the Kingpin) never really change much. HalfShadow (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Dannik Jerriko

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dannik Jerriko, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Dannik Jerriko. Terraxos (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Abusive Reversion

Carrying on the dot_cattiness vendetta against me isn't "wikipedia-worthy", either. (Profane opinion of you and your abusive edit self-censored.) -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

It is when there is a case of straight reversion, which was not the case here. I helped the article by adding multiple appearances and trimmed some unnecessary POV. That said, I added a note.

Asgardian (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

El Stingray

When you removed trivia from this article, you also removed the categories. Please take more care in your editing.-Mr Adequate (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Original research"

This is not original research. It is clearly sourced from the Ninja Golf article. Have you even played Ninja Golf? Did you read the article? Did you read beyond one sentence of what I wrote before mashing the undo button? I'm trying to assume good faith, but you have clearly failed to do so, defending your fandom by dismissing any obvious facts as original research when no original research was done whatsoever. I am a fan of ATHF as well, but I am not obtaining this information off-site. The removal was wrong and is disrupting the article's neutral point of view by censoring potentially negative facts.

Regardless, I won't put the information back in for now. The information will keep finding its way back in by others, though, so please don't try and take ownership of the article. SashaNein (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of things resemble lots of other things. Noting this means little in the ways of wikipedia. If I went to the article about Callisto from Marvel Comics and started talking about how she resembles Cthullu because they both have tentacles, someone would probably delete it for being original research. However, if there was an article say, written by Chris Claremont, a popular comic book writer, saying 'Cthullu inspired the modification to Callisto', then that would be worth noting. As in linking to hypothetical article and summarizing it. As for the rest of your comments, believe what you will, though you would be wrong. Lots42 (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You are deliberately understating how many similarities there are between Ninja Golf and ATHF: Zombie Ninja Pro-Am. If that is the best excuse you can come up with, then you are truly disrupting the article's neutral point of view. SashaNein (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop assuming I am being disruptive on purpose. Secondly, I have no doubt the games have many similarities. But unless there is secondary citations to illustrate this example, any talk about these similarities is simply original research/speculation. Thus, not wanted on wikipedia. Like I said, many things resemble many things. Lots42 (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Rorschach discussion page.

Um, okay? If you want the cited information in the article, then by all means, go put it in. I fail to see what the problem is

I just wanted to take it to the discussion page first to see what other people thought. I hate edit wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you wearing pants?

If not, you may be interested in putting this userbox on your user page: {{User:Captain Infinity/NoPants}}. Blackhawk made the graphic for me. Cheers! --Captain Infinity (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

plot violated copyright, it had to go

Hello, Lots42. I am unfamiliar with the policy or guideline that you are using to conduct this series of edits where you remove the plot. Could you point me in the right direction? Unschool (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of maintaining a more-or-less continuous flow to the conversation, I have replied to you on my talk page. Unschool (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathemanic deletion

Thanks for your help as always with this one.  :) By the way, it may not be clear that you are arguing to Keep; so if you are, you may want to indicate it clearly as myself, Xero, and Le Grand have. BOZ (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Mines: theminesonline

Please remember to notify an editor on their talk page when you submit one of their articles for deletion. Otherwise, the article may get deleted without the editor finding out what they did wrong. Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanos

Thanks for the concern. I have not, however, performed any blind reverts on Thanos and always added comments. Unfortunately our fellow poster cannot see the inherernt POV in many of his edits. A similar thing happened over at Galactus and to a lesser degree the Fallen One, but others have intervened and backed my view. Anyway, what I will do, even though it is time-consuming, is break down the parts he insists on again and explain why it doesn't work in the current form.

Asgardian (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ringer copying South Park

In the article on Up The Down Steroid I said that the scene where the priest punches through the confession booth appeared in an earlier south park episode. However you removed this with the comment "dude what?" Have you seen "Do the handicapped go to hell?" It's a South Park episode where Cartman confesses all his sins to the priest in a confession booth and then the priest punches him in it and he says "I have felt the angry hand of god". I'm pretty sure this is a notable fact, care to explain why it isn't?Salute to Wikimedia! (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I should have been more clear in my edit comments. Secondly, taking a look at it, what I removed is original research. Saying 'This scene resembles that scene' without any citations, well, that's suitable material for your blog or a fansite or whatever, but not for Wikipedia. Lots42 (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Beach Touch

Hi! I have delete the db:notability before read your message, beacuse I was working on the page! I am writing the beach touch page because the beach touch sport is on the touch rugby page but there is not an explanation of that (no rules, no place, nothing). I know what this sport is and then i reply... there is a problem that i don't know?

pls tell me!

Ciao, Maci MaiDireMeta (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


I have made a lot of mistake! sorry!

ok, i try to reply to all,

1) It is not my own creation, it is a world ruled sport by FIT (federation of international touch) that is played from Australia to Italian coast.

2-3) Sorry for deletion, when i save the page i have delete it...

4) Ok, i was not sure about where i have to write and then... sorry!

5) thanks for your help! :) MaiDireMeta (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

About db:notability, if you think that page is not important can you replace it? i don't know how i can do it!

Are you asking me to replace the page or the notification? Because I don't know how to replace a page that had been deleted and if you want to restore the notification, just look through the history. Either way, Wikipedia people will understand genuine mistakes and you should not be punished for such. Lots42 (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Right for me! thanks! I was asking to replace the notification if you think that is the case, but now i think about that with the history! (and then i have to write hangon, right?) in my discussion page i have posted some links with article of beach touch but i don't know if i can post it on the page... can you help me another one times? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaiDireMeta (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense category

If I read this edit right, you deleted Category:Living people as a "nonsense category". That category is on (almost) every biography of a living person. What's nonsensical about it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete the entire category; I deleted the reference off of one page, which is kinda silly in retrospect. I do believe the category is unweildy and would be impossible to be useful. If you wish to revert my change, I will make no complaint. Lots42 (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's unwieldy but I don't think it was ever intended to be used for navigation, unlike a a normal category. It's purpose is more bureaucratic: to remind everyone that the article falls under BLP rules. Unfortunately, that's one article that's required special watching due to past BLP issues. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What is BLP please? Lots42 (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to eavesdrop and butt in, but in case this left you hanging: BLP stands for "Biographies of Living People"; it's the Wikipedia policy on articles about live people. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Expanded synopses

Thanks for the advice, I think that having long synopses occurs with a lot of Buffy (and Angel) episode pages, but some of the synopses are really long e.g. The Killer In Me and Chosen, both of which are very blow-by-blow descriptions. So either this is an endemic problem w/ Buffy project or just a different characteristic of Buffy pages (i.e. that they have long-ish synopses), given the fact that there is a whole Buffyverse project it seems to me that a little more coverage is probably better. Phoebeheyman (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Pyro

My intent wasn't an attack on Loeb's character; rather, I'm just mentioning that Loeb often confuses 616 and Ultimate characters in his Ultimate writing in case someone is suddenly wondering why Pyro - otherwise a pretty cool character - is suddenly a smirking rapist. Jeph made that error; thus, we must explain how he made it, even if the explanation insults him.

I'm changing it back, but feel free to edit it and re-word the argument.SaliereTheFish (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

...Isn't his previous reputation for stupid writing, in books related and unrelated to the Ultimates, proof enough? Isn't the fact that he's suddenly changed the personalities, appearances and in some cases the ethnicity of characters of U3, breaking up any and all consistency between his book and previous volumes, evidence enough that this man may have a screw or two loose in writing this book? Wouldn't it be better, kinder to simply imply and hint this fact, rather than state the god's honest truth in the article about Jeph Loeb that he cannot write a comic book that doesn't read like a seven-year-old's badly-researched fanfic?

Baron Mordo

Is this on your watchlist? I left a comment on the talk page and was hoping you could respond. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Brother Voodoo

I understand. If you'll check out the WikiProject: Comics editorial guidelines and exemplars, you'll see that what we call "blow-by-blow" overdetails aren't considered encyclopedic. Optimally, what goes in these things are significant character milestones. Read the Batman and Superman articles for examples of what we mean.

It takes time to learn encyclopedia research and writing. One wouldn't expect to pick up a guitar one day and be able to play perfectly. There's a learning curve, and we all understand. Good Wiki'ing and good wishes, --Tenebrae (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I complete understand, I just disagree for this example. No worries. Lots42 (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Freedom Force article

I don't know that I'd call those "fan bios". Other than the "influences/homages/parodies" that kept creeping in at the bottom of the entries, those are basically their histories given in the cutscenes in the game. And since the game repeatedly indicates that the history and personality of a person influences how Energy X will affect them, the bio may indeed be very relevant. Once I get time, I'll restore those to just the facts and perhaps we can work on it from there? -Fuzzy (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your message on my talk page, no, so many details probably are not needed. ^_^ They started out a bit shorter with just a quick summary of their origin. But, Wikipedia being what it is, they kept getting larger as people added more details, perceived homages, and strategy tips. They've been trimmed down a few times over the last year or so. -Fuzzy (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Howard Mackie

Yes it was a good idea to remove that, when you start reading about what fans thought it sets of warning bells (with sirens and flashing lights). The whole article is a mess and needs a heavy rewrite but that was the section that had to be removed. (Emperor (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

Buffy

Well as luck would have it I may have watched an episode or two (I even had a proposal accepted for a paper to appear in Slayage - although I never did get around to writing it, I must do one day though) and yes it doesn't seem a good idea to add that unless someone can find a quote that it was done on purpose for a reason. (Emperor (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Hi, I've replied to your question at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.--BelovedFreak 10:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mackenize Calhoun

It applies because Wikipedia has policies we have to follow, among them Verifiability. Placing information in articles without a verifiable source violates that policy. In addition, that passage indicates that it is supported by House of Cards. By inserting that bit of info that you did, it gives the appearances that House of Cards is the source for it, which it isn't. We don't know the exact extent of medicine in the 24th century. Some episodes/movies seem to indicate that massive injuries or disfigurements are reversible, but others, like "Wrongs Darker than Death or Night", seem to indicate that they are not. It's best not to imply anything pertaining to Mac's intent (or Peter David's) regarding the scar unless an explicit indication to that effect is made. Nightscream (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When you say many of the Calhoun books mention "this", what are you referring to? His decision to keep the scar vis a vis the nature of 24th Century medicine? If so, then feel free to re-add that info, and cite those stories. As it was, you inserted it in a passage that cited House of Cards as the source, and House of Cards does not make any such mention that I'm aware of, as I mentioned earlier. As for Starfleet medicine mentioned dozens of times, I believe I addressed that point as well when I pointed out that some stories show characters not availing themselves to that resource, and cited one of them. "The Way of the Warrior" is yet another. Did you not read my post? Nightscream (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
In "The Darkness and the Light", we learn that the man who has been assassinating members of the Shakaar Resistance Cell is a Cardassian named Silaran, who was a servant severely disfigured when the home he worked in on Bajor during the Occupation was bombed by the Cell, and he still exhibits his disfigurement when we see him at the end of the episode, despite the obvious resources he has to treat it. In "Soldiers of the Empire" (which I erroneously referred to above as "The Way of the Warrior"--sorry about that), General Martok, who was rescued several episodes prior from a two-year stint in a Dominion asteroid prison, and who lost an eye, adamantly refuses Doctor Bashir's suggestion that he receive an artificial eye implant. Here's a third: In "All Good Things...", the anti-time phenomena causes physical regressions among the crew that include fetuses to abort, Geordi to grow biological eyes, and old scars to heal. The fact that a ship filled with Federation citizens/Starfleet personnel have scars that they have not had removed shows that the practice or ability to remove certain physical traits is not as clear-cut as some stories would indicate. The external reason is probably that these plot points are dictated by the needs of a given story. Internally, we can speculate that perhaps most people choose not to use such technology. If this is the case, then mentioning it in Calhoun's article is not relevant, and serves more as a bit of editor POV than anything else, which is why it should be left out, unless some passage in a Calhoun story has addressed it. (And btw, Calhoun has also appeared in a recent comic book miniseries, Turnaround.). Nightscream (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't offer an opinion. I pointed out that there are examples of people not having injuries or disfigurements reversed, which is a statement of fact, not opinion. We do not know that Silaran is crazy (and even if he was, it does not follow that this would prevent him from reversing the very disfigurement that was the basis of his rage towards the Shakaar Cell), or that any of the people on the Enterprise were "on their way to Sickbay" to have their scars reversed, which is an extremely tenuous suggestion anyway. The fact that they were "offscreen" is irrelevant to this. The point is, we have numerous examples of major injuries being reversed in Trek, and examples where they do not. In Martok's case, we know that his decision was elective, but we do not know that with the other cases. I could go on looking for other examples, like why Scotty never had his missing finger regenerated (James Doohan's missing finger is easily visible in the movies, like ST IV, when they stopped trying to cover it up), and could offer arguments that explain this, like hypothesizing that the physiology of some individuals or races is incompatible with certain treatments, but this is beside the point. The point is, we do not know that Mac's scar could easily be removed, or that he has chosen to keep it. Adding such an assertion would POV, which is not permitted. Nightscream (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. If you manage to remember one, let me know, and I'll try looking through it myself, since I have 'em all. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Question

Because, unlike the other two, it adds nothing to the article and is seemingly an isolated fact, drifting there. The others link to the developers and other aspects of the game's development. The fact that it's sourced doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

August, 2008

Thanks for being so concerned about the No Meals on Wheels page. However no one admitted it was speculation and because of this i'm going to fix a few things on the page myself that i believe to be speculation. Ultron5000 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD escalation

Thanks for the note. The dispute has moved off to a more suitable forum [1] so I'll leave them to thrash it out there. I've put the AfD on my watchlist and if anyone takes pot shots there I'll ask them nicely to take it to the other discussion. (Emperor (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

Yes - must be something in the water at the moment. It is on my watchlist and I was keeping an eye on it to see what happens next. I've also bumped the discussion on the talk page in the hope that people will take it there rather than wrestling with the article and taking cheapshots at each other through the edit summary. (Emperor (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC))
The problem it isn't necessarily a vote - people give their views and state policy and the like and the closing admin takes it all on board. I think it is a tricky one though as it might have been wise to close it as no consensus but with an eye to returning to it in 6 months and seeing how it has progressed. The main problem was that no one was able to add any sources during the Afd and even some would have saved the article. Your best bet is to put your head together with others who thought it was worth keeping, find some good resources and take it to deletion review. I think if you can show the sources that would have been added it would be possible to reverse that decision. (Emperor (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC))

OR flag on The Stepford Wives (2004 movie)

Hey there, I have gone back and added my sources to the "plot holes" section of The Stepford Wives, but I have a point of curiosity: Why were the plot holes flagged as possible original research, while the plot summary was not? It seems to me that the plot summary is a pretty straightforward result of someone having sat down and watched the movie and described what they were seeing-- it doesn't cite any other reviews or publications as to its knowledge of what happened within the movie. This seems to be the norm with plot summaries in articles on movies. Is there some sort of "special case" in the Wikipedia guidelines that I'm unaware of, which covers plot summaries and states that they don't need to be cited? Thanks, Rnickel (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Punisher (2004 film) soundtrack

Thanks for the note - I've started the discussion on the talk page. I am having a few connection problems (seems to be working OK at the moment) so it might need a few pairs of eyes on the page to jolly people along and make sure they thrash this out on the talk page. (Emperor (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Again thanks for that - he is on my watchlist but I haven't managed to find much time to keep an eye on it recently but I'll know to doublecheck the edits on Stan Lee, it clearly violates WP:BLP and needs to be swiftly addressed. If it gets out of hand flag it over on the Comics Project too as the more eyes the better. (Emperor (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC))

Article nominated for deletion

I've just nominated List of United States journalism scandals for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. Redddogg (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird problem

It is probably karma. Things must have been very straightforward in a previous life. ;)

This time round (and bear in mind I'm not a medical man) but I diagnose a problem with your pipe - remove it and the link resolves properly [2]. I'll leave you to figure out the question of copyright violation. (Emperor (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

Reply

No I meant the guide, novel can apply to that as well. Though I'm willing to believe you about Roanoke, I would like to check my copy of it because I honestly don't remember if it was mentioned. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Riot

I have restored your edit and stated the specific policies. It can't be left in. If this problem continues feel free to flag it over at WP:BLPN and they should get on the case (my watchlist is so vast I'll probably miss it and the more eyes on a problem the better). (Emperor (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

Section length, Book titles, et al.

Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, what constitutes “fannishness”, etc.? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to the other admins involved in this, I'm not neutral either. "Not uninvolved" is how they put it. As far as being the model of a mordern editor, if you look at his recent history, you'll see this is not the case, as this is the second time he's been blocked in recent months, and three different admins--me, User:Emperor and User:Daniel Case agreed that it had to be done. But I'm not focusing on that, or asking you to. I'm focusing on the other things that I listed in my last post on Asgardian's Talk Page. It is those things that I'd like you to touch upon. If you can make your thoughts known there on those points, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you already said that, and my response was (and I apologize for not being clearer) is that no one is "neutral". Everyone has an opinion. As far as Asgardian is concerned, he has not behaved, and if you see the various discussions pertaining to that, such as on User talk:Emperor, you'll see this. But I'm not asking you to comment on Asgardian. I'm asking for your opinion on the points raised in that discussion. You said you agreed with me on those points, so just say that. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The New Pages Section

Sorry I don't use the features you talk about and so don't really understand what the situation involves. It might be better bringing it up with someone who does. Sorry. (Emperor (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

If it's the page's creator who's removing the notice, you can replace the template and put a warning on their userpage, OR, do what they should have done, and replace the template with a {{Template:Hangon}} beneath it indicating that the creator disagrees with the speedy-deletion rationale, and the admin who checks it out after that can make the call.
If it's someone else who removes the template--even if you suspect it is a sockpuppet--you should simply nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. Ford MF (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Constatine film

Thanks for the heads-up - the film is on my watchlist but I'll keep an eye out for this kind of thing. Seems to be based more on what people think an angel is, rather than how it is expressed in the film. (Emperor (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

Assessment?

Hey man, I posted notices on the G.I.Joe and Transformers projects pages about starting up assessments for those projects. BOZ (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reason why that seems like a bad idea? It might make more sense for Wikiproject Toys to do it though, and add that on to the various child projects like these two. BOZ (talk)
No, no... I wasn't asking you to do it (I certainly don't plan to), just asking for your input on whether it was a good idea or not. :) I actually went out and added those to the Toys Wproject last night, so I will probably slap that on some of the more notable Joe and TF articles. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Cool - I've already started. I'm just going to do a handful and let others figure it out. No one wants to bother, fine by me, but at least some of the most notable characters will get noticed by the 1.0 project now. BOZ (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Right place to report

I'm not sure. It might be that the person is notable but if not then it could be worth salting so it can't be restarted without requesting the protection be removed. If the person would actually communicate it would help - what about dropping them a note?

Otherwise you might want to notify the earliest admins to deal with this and let them know that it is still going on and/or drop a note in on WP:ANI (which is pretty general purpose). (Emperor (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

Small Soldiers

There is an intrinsic issue: while I wonder how derogatory the description of a fictional toy really is, the underlying issue is I don't recall anyone assigning an origin to the character. It is a bit like saying that one of the others is of Scandinavian descent. You can't. All that can really be said is that they are black, from which you could assume the fictional toy is supposed to be an African-American but they could as easily be... Canadian. I am also unsure how fictional toys have a nationality either. So it falls down on both fronts. (Emperor (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

Possible potential vandalism

Looks like they are a vandal/troll - I wouldn't worry about any accusations from them and it looks like they'll be dealt with pretty quickly if they keep that up!! (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

Geralds Game

The page you tagged for speedy deletion was redirected to Gerald's Game. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Family Guy

If it is not original research on your part then you will be able to find sources. Requesting verification of claims is not original research. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral advice

There are problems with sections like parodies/homages, cultural references, in popular media, etc. I have done quite a lot of B-class assessments and such sections almost always stop an article from getting any further than a C because "X is a reference to Y" is, without a reference, original research and often just the editors' opinions. They can work if brutally trimmed down to those that can be referenced (in the example you show that could be from the DVD commentary perhaps) and then heavily policed (as it is a magnet for trivia) but I have yet to see one that worked. For example, the one on Jack Kirby was just a retitled trivia section (see Talk:Jack Kirby#Homages/Trivia) and it was ultimately removed.

It might be worth raising with the main project that covers the area and see if anyone has any ideas or useful sources (there may even be books that discuss this type of thing, in other areas books on TV series can, for example, discuss the real-life cases that inspired an episode).

So yes there are problems, they can possibly be addressed but such sections do need... something doing with them and the other alternative is removing the whole thing.

Also on the other issue you raised previously - it was fixed pretty quickly and it took a while to work out what had happened. Seems someone edited the template at the bottom of the page, so the fix was to go there (via the "v" or "e" links in the top left) and you can revert it from there. (Emperor (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

Asking for sources is the only way to avoid drama. Of course if Opitimus Prime turns up and says "Hi I'm Optimus Prime" then you can quote that and it is job done. Otherwise it is just opinion as someone can sit there and say to themselves "well that is obviously a reference to X" but that is just what they think - it is pretty much the definition of original research. You then reach the point where someone thinks it is and someone thinks it isn't. Its why statements have to be sourced and why it is a vital component of the B-class assessment.
I agree that there is not necessarily anything wrong with a small cultural references section - it just needs to be trimmed back to what you can prove (it is always about what we can prove not what we know or what we think we know) and policed hard.
Also that link you provided is a red link and there is nothing there. (Emperor (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

The ink blot test

It is connected with this merging] of Watchmen characters. Basically the article needs as much out-of-universe material as possible and the in-universe material is largely covered on the Watchmen article itself and/or runs counter to WP:WAF and WP:PLOT. (Emperor (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

USS Tortuga

You could always leave a note on the talk page but WP:BLP suggest you should remove it until it can be sourced. (Emperor (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

I don't know - it is a subject area I know little about. It may be true but unsourced, the editor may simply be mistaken ot it is something more malicious. In the end we have to assume good faith. As I say - flag this on the talk page and if there is an issue then it can be taken up there rather than on the main article. (Emperor (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

List of fictional places in G.I. Joe (2nd nomination)

Just informing you of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional places in G.I. Joe (2nd nomination) as you seem to be one of the main G.I. Joe editors. BOZ (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

White-Washing Race

I have to admit that has me stumped too - it clearly has issues and I can address the technical ones but the content ones are tricky. What I have done is flag it here and hopefully they'll have a better of how to address things. Feel free to pitch in any extra concerns you may have. (Emperor (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Quotes

That is something that needs to be thrashed out on the talk page (as I see everyone is doing) and possibly thrown open to wider discussion on the Film Project talk page so there can be a consensus on what is and isn't a good idea on film articles. (Emperor (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

The Jeffersons

Did you leave that message on my talk page with regards any particular edit I made to the The Jeffersons article? The plot synopsis should consist of what we see on screen, and I don't recall hearing reference made to Michael Jackson in the plot itself. If analysis of the plot suggests the character of Mr Jefferson was based on Michael Jackson, it can be added in it's own section (which of course it was.) Alastairward (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So what's the problem? There are cited claims that one of the main characters is based on Mr Jackson. What now? Alastairward (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, it wasn't cited, then it was, and now it's in the article. So where's the problem? Alastairward (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
So...? No real reason for the messages left on my talk page then? Venting steam were we? Alastairward (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong tagging for speedy deletion

Hi Lots42. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted you to inform that I declined to delete Table rugby, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion because of the following concern: Speedy deletion does not cover WP:NOT except when a criterion was made explicitly for it. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or file them at articles for deletion. Regards SoWhy 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi - concerning Cloverfield

Hi

Didnt know what I know now - I spent a lot of time last night and today reading various wiki articles on deletions, tagging rollback etc so i realise that I prob didn't have to put that there, it was just that they didn't have a talk page and didn't want them to come back in and think I had just restored the material they had deleted without a reason

Did you want me to discuss here, in my chat or back on cloverfield page ??

thanks
Chaosdruid (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Grave (Killswitch Engage Album)

I've removed your tag from this; it most certainly establishes context. Ironholds (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Context is 'what does this article mean? What is it referring to?'. '"The Grave" is the fith studio album by Killswitch Engage. It is set for release in spring 2009.' establishes it is an album by a musical group called Killswitch Engage; context. And lo and behold... Ironholds (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
So you would have still tagged it for deletion per 'no context' even though 1) it establishes context and 2) it links to other articles, establishing notability in relation to that context? Ironholds (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
To quote the CSD guidelines for 'no context' tagging, articles with no context are: 'Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article'. If you can identify what the article is generally about then no context does not apply; it is nothing to do with internal wiki-linking. Ironholds (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I'd rather you either admitted you made a mistake and tag articles properly in future or be honest (if this is what you were thinking) and admit that you thought of it as the easiest way to get rid of an article which would probably not have survived a prod/AfD without going through the five-day wait. Ironholds (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Slow revert war

Yes it is a tricky one. I've opened up discussion here. (Emperor (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

Hawk

If you mean this edit then I think that is just part of the ebb and flow of the editing here and I don't see the advert. I don't know of any specific sandbox template (but there are a lot and I'm sure there is one) but {{welcometest}} (or one of the variations) does include such advice. (Emperor (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

No that seems fine. There does seem to be some nonsense going on there. (Emperor (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Rorschach

Thanks for that backup... I would probably have gotten offended and said something stupid and gotten into an edit war if I had to respond to that edit :) WookMuff (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

I'm not really sure I understand. Do you mean this: Kilg%re?

There wasn't an article and it was done over a year ago so I am not sure I'm looking at whatever you're referring to. (Emperor (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

There isn't an article that I can find (and no deleted edits on that page). It might be the character deserves an article (but see also the discussion on WT:CMC about lists of minor characters, which might be a good solution) but for now I suppose it, at least, provides some information about the doings of the character. (Emperor (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

Speedy deletion tagging

Hi Lots42, please be careful with your speedy deletion tagging. You tagged Living Anthem as "patent nonsense", when it is not incomprehensible -- it's clearly about a band named Living Anthem. You also tagged Nelly Ciobanu for not indicating why its subject is important, but the article says she's won several international competitions, and that is a claim of importance. Living Anthem should have been tagged as an article about a band that doesn't indicate why it's significant, and Nelly Ciobanu could have been prodded or taken to AFD. Somno (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1