Thanks much. Your effort to appease me on what must seem to be a petty issue means quite a bit. It is appreciated, and I look forward to returning the spirit of cooperation in the future.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to you, it wasn't petty, so I am glad that my archiving early to remove it from the trafficked area was able to make you feel better about the situation. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell)04:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think, considering the history, you thought better of your posting. In which case, kudos to you. Personally, I don't think anyone comes out of this particular episode smelling of roses (do they ever), but I do think you should avoid Arcayne; or make your peace with said individual.
Do you, perhaps know the book I'm OK, you're OK? Basically, the hypothesis is that many people consider that for them to be 'up', they need to drive someone else 'down'. The short circuiting of that approach is to suggest that everybody can be 'OK', without any cost to anyone - beyond an acceptance of their own faults and being prepared to move forward with others (accepting their faults too). Personally, I think everyone should be 'ok' - and that does mean Arcayne with you too.
The way forward is to put the past behind us, and for everyone to try to find some common ground that moves issues forward without involving personalities. I do hope that helps Kbthompson (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Who trivia
No, I don't mind the friendly comment at all (it's a welcome change - I hate bickering with folk). I do have a question, though: when you say the following: "it seems that the trivia in question might be limited to continuity between the two different series", could I trouble you to explain what you mean in more detail? Remember that the term series means different things in the UK and in the US. - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on El Sobrante, California. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You've deleted the Judy Malloy cite three times, characterizing it as a vanity entry. Malloy is not adding the cite, so this complaint lacks validity. You've also stated Malloy is not relevant to El Sobrante, yet she lives there. Residency in El Sobrante is reason enough for inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing the notability of Malloy (an entry you created). I'm not seeing the relevance to El Sobrante other than that she moved there after doing the things that made her notable. This "tired, old revert war" ended with a consensus squarely against you. A consensus you have repeatedly attempted to circumvent. The history is plain to see on the discussion page. Seek a consensus for inclusion.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Show.aspx.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Show.aspx.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Lgtpb.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Lgtpb.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The Super Scary Monster Show featuring Little Gloomy. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Green Day and ALternative
Your revert on the Green Day article does not have a description,
If you believe that characters that appear in just one film and a couple of video games (that are part of the promotion of the film) are notable enough to have a separated list, then add information first to the film article to support your views, and then make the split. The Incredibles have no appearances outside the film/video games and a short live comic series, and have not received deep coverage by reliable secondary sources. They are no more notable than Finding Nemo or Monsters Inc. characters. You should also take a look at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Writing About Fiction. --LoЯd۞pεth04:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comic series is ongoing and has been met with critical acclaim, so the characters involved in the series are notable enough for inclusion. I have no problem with the list being integrated, but not the way you have been doing it, which results in the deletion of a great deal of material. Generally speaking you don't seem to have alot of support on this, and I think you should seek a consensus before continuing to redirect the article.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the comic series were notable (however, it does not even has an article), that does not autmatically makes the characters notable. Lady and the Tramp, Finding Nemo or Wall E are extremely notable, but their characters are not splitted in a separated list. The comics, as well as the video games, are part of the media related to the film. Notability occurs outside related media. --LoЯd۞pεth05:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If notability only occurs outside related material, I assume you will be deleting the Star Wars expanded universe page next? We'll see how that goes over.
The comic is original licensed material. Not supplemental material generated internally. Furthermore, the comic series is ongoing and has met both critical acclaim and award nominations.
And you know as well as I do that the lack (or presence) of a Wikipedia article does not indicate notability or a lack thereof.
I agree that the page could use some editing. But you are in the minority here and your insistence on deleting material against majority will is nothing but inflammatory, thus hindering any discussion on article improvement. Do us all a favor and restore the material, and deal with this issue on the talk page.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minority vs Majority. I assume you alone are an overwhelming majority? OK...
You don't seem to be discussing this in good faith. Where did I use the word "overwhelming"? I didn't. So let's be clear: A majority has argued against you. That is fact. As shown by looking at the edits of the last couple of days, I'm not the only one who has reverted or challenged you on this. So your use of the word "only" is absurd. As for Star Wars, did I not clearly say "expanded"? Yes. I did. Expanded does not mean Jabba the Hutt or Darth Vader. It refers to official licensed material generated outside the films. So please explain what makes the "expanded" Star Wars universe notable while this one is not.Theplanetsaturn (talk)
Once again, we are discussing the notability of the characters, not the notability of the expanded universe. Let's pretend for a second that The Incredibles "expanded universe" is the most notable piece of fiction in the world. Even with that, the characters must prove notability by themselves, not just depending or relying on the notability of their fictional universes and expanded universes. --LoЯd۞pεth05:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get that this is your opinion. My understanding is that: "Elements that are important to understanding a work of fiction, but that lack significant real-world information may, if they are currently cluttering the main article, be dealt with very briefly in the form of a list article of, for instance, minor characters or episodes. Such list articles generally provide a very brief overview of topics, and do not go into great detail. These articles should still deal with elements that are important to understanding the work — lists that amount to trivial and inconsequential information are not acceptable."
You seem to feel the information in the list is trivial or inconsequential. I disagree, and judging by the fact that I am not the only one to revert your edits, your opinion on this matter is that of the minority. Since you are clearly in the minority, you should act in a less inflammatory manner by leaving the article as is and seeking a consensus on the Talk Page.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Tron characters
You make a claim that both Tron 2.0 and Tron: Legacy are official canon, yet every article I have read states that is not the case. Could you please provide a reference that backs your changes? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)19:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this link: [1] - The relevant quote: "It's extremely rare, however, for a game to be the official sequel to a movie -- especially a film that's 21 years old." That was after just a minute or two search. Back in 2003-ish, Disney packaged and sold 2.0 as the official sequel.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was then, do you have anything that currently supports your changes? As often happens with these things, stories, etc. that were once canon change. Star Trek is a prime example. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)20:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said it was a retcon. The language I used in the alterations accounts for this. It says that 2.0 is not a part of the Legacy continuity, but keeps the documented fact that 2.0 was the official sequel to the original film.
These things do change, but history is history. Frankly, the order of information should also be reorganized according to release. I left that alone as I knew it would be to contentious for most people.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon the newest interview from Boxoffice Magazine, I have made some tweaks that address your points while establishing that the Tron 2.0 story line is now non-canon. Also based on this interview, the new movie and stories are not retcons but the new established canon story with the Tron 2.0 story line discarded. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)07:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have no special authority here, and deleting parts of other people's user pages is an extreme and usually inappropriate action.
You did correctly to bring what you considered to be an abuse problem to ANI for administrator review. Since then, you have overreached and are now in violation of policies yourself.
Please stop. Do not edit his user page again. An uninvolved administrator can remove the section if a final consensus on the ANI discussion is that it's inappropriate.
Did I claim special authority somewhere? The general opinion in regards to the attitude of Coder Dan seems clear enough, and at the time of my initial edit the aforementioned user had declared himself done with Wikipedia, complete with the clear declaration that Wikipedia is "just another internet ghetto for brain-dead losers"[2]
Under those specific conditions, I see nothing wrong with deleting a section that includes a quote attributed to me declaring me "illiterate". User pages are not personal property. Furthermore, as per the guidelines covering talk pages. "Whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself, and "Wikipedia is not censored" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor."
Yeah, we're talking about labeling the writing of other editors as "illiterate". That falls under "extremely offensive and may be removed on sight" in my book. Particularly when the editor in question has claimed to have abandoned Wikipedia.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Theplanetsaturn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
