User talk:Bignole/Archive/2011/October
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Take a look at this article?
Hi Bignole, I've been looking to get someone to do a peer review and a GA review on a tv show article I have worked extensively on, The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. It just went through a copy edit, and I think it's looking pretty darn good. A GA review would likely be a breeze. I'm also interested in a peer review to help prepare it for a possible FAN in the future. Do you think you might do either a GA review or a peer review? AstroCog (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
| To Bignole, thank you for your comments regarding referencing for "Storylines" sections in fictional character articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
I have passed the article. Although I'm considering whether/how to take the matter further to gain a larger consensus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
|
|
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
| I have to copy the one above, you're opinion is always greatly appreciated. Jayy008 (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC) |
Chain Saw
I'm not sure what the next step is. Perhaps another peer review? I do want to get it to FA in time for it's 40th anniversary in 2014:).--Tærkast (Discuss) 12:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Ordering issues - again.
This time for the article. Could you please voice your opinion over at the project. Also, the user who's contesting it says that "As for the rules assertion, Wikiproject television is a collaborative group that agrees within itself on how articles should be formatted. It doesn't set rules, and it doesn't have absolute power to govern the appearance or content of articles. It's a problem-solving group, not a cabal of rule-makers. So the assertion that you're "following the rules" is a false one." But I thought a consensus had to be followed? Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated. Jayy008 (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Bignole, thank you for voicing your opinion. Could you tell me what happens next? It doesn't seem to go anywhere, despite more users in support of the cast credit order. Jayy008 (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The article Traitor (comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and, without reception and significance in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, the topic of the article is not suitable for Wikipedia as a stand-alone article since it falls into WP:IINFO.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Bignole are you monitoring this article because you're awaiting the game or just removing the NFC? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh OK, I thought maybe you were active in it. I've been quickly reminded why I don't do game articles, dealing with game idiots AND comic idiots simultaneously (not slating them all, I like games and comics), and they're making it a chore. Bit easier to rely on others in the FilmProject, I haven't seen anyone make any kind of useful edit that I haven't had to fix since I became involved.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would've removed them as that music section is too big, it drives me nuts, but I'm ruffling a lot of feathers already so I thought I would leave it for someone else. And I can't get the game until 2 weeks after it's out so it's probably going to take a pounding then :( Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Reply from Project
I can't ask you to post your opinion in the discussion as I don't want to be accused of WP:CANVAS. I agree with what you said on the Project page, but I can't make a reversion or edit without it being scrutinized or without being accused of trying to be disruptive or making a WP:POINT. How would you proceed in the case of Hart of Dixie if you were me. (Asking for advice) Jayy008 (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: Batman/video game soundtrack covers
Loud and clear. I fully comprehend the appropriate use now. There are many video game soundtrack releases not very well constructed on Wikipedia, some more deserving of their own pages than others - it is here in these future instances that I will use covers, though now this means I will be more inclined to making many new pages that are probably going to be weak and under constant jeopardy... Thanks for letting me know! H4RR7H (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Continued here
Look, I'm not going to fight the use of the word "portrayed" -- it's really not that big of a deal to me. What is a big deal to me is making good edits to an article and having them wholesale reverted for no good reason by an editor who is trying to make a point. What's a big deal to me is that same editor choosing to disrupt Wikipedia and the article through edit warring and then boldly proclaiming, "I've been blocked many times before, I'm not ashamed of it". Edit warring and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point are seriously troubling, as well as blockable, behaviors. When they are acted out by someone who almost seems proud of his block log (albeit, it has to be under other accounts, because I don't see any blocks listed under Jayy008 - and that in itself is troubling and problematic because I now am wondering about whether or not he's an indef blocked editor who's come back under a sock account)...well, let's taking all of this in consideration - let's just say my red-flag alert is going off like crazy. I've tried to be patient and work with Jayy008, but my patience is coming to an end. The endless posts on my talk page from him over the last several days are only one in a list of several things that make it difficult to continue having any feelings of good faith toward this editor. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- As far as "portrayed" goes, I have to disagree that it's just for real life people acting. Either way, there is nothing wrong with the way you wanted to change it to, except for the use of the period at the end. There are many different ways to represent the cast identifiers. As for the edit warring, one person can never edit war. It always takes at least 2 people (sometimes more if it's a really fun edit war). I'm not condoning Jay's actions, but it isn't all just him, even if the differences are over the changing of one word. Talk it out and agree on a style for the page, that's the best way of doing it. There's no rule about it being any one particular way. Find the one that works and use it. As for Jay being a sock, I don't know. I've never had issues with him and editors change their names on here without much reason. I've worked with one editor on many film pages and he's on like his 4th name, and for no other reason than he likes to have something different every now and then. Either way, Jay can be passionate about editing so don't hold that against him. I'm the same way with certain pages, as I'm sure you can be as well for your favorite articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Changing your account name is one thing, creating a new account when you've got a history of several blocks (and possibly a indef) is not allowed. New accounts are to be registered with full disclosure. From what Jay said, he didn't do that. And yes, it takes two to edit war. It only takes one, however, to intentionally disrupt and be obnoxious in order to make a point. The "differences" were over one word (as you stated) and that was obvious. That being said, it's only logical to conclude that reverting all of my edits wholesale was uncalled for. He even admitted they were good edits. I can't imagine any good reason then to revert those good edits except to be intentionally disruptive. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, Jay's been around for 2 years and hasn't had a block in that time. So, if he has been blocked it's been on a completely different account (which I think people would have put two and two together that it was a malicious sock account). With regard to the reverting, if he reverted all of your edits and later admitted that most were fine with the exception of one change, why not just re-edit the article and not include that one change. Then, go to the talk page and discuss the inclusion of the change that is in disagreement? That seems like the logical approach to me. I've been in my share of edit wars--on either side of the opinion scale, and have been blocked for it--and it is tough to see the logical approach when you're getting into heightened arousal. When I look back over the history of Hart of Dixie I see that both of you are in danger of violating the third revert rule (Trust me when I say, it's very easy to violate that rule when you think you're in the right). So, now is probably the best time to start discussing the changes and agreeing on how it should look. From what I have experienced, you seem like a smart person so I know you know that that is the best solution. Especially since it appears that you and Jay seem to watch over the same articles. Best to learn how to edit with someone you disagree with often, than to edit war with them. Well, that's my 2¢ at least. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
@LHB, I am not proud of my blocks. I said I wasn't ashamed because I have come back a stronger editor and I've learnt from my mistakes. In good faith, I replied and posted a link to my former page (I don't believe I have any more). I haven't edited from there for a long time and it most certainly was not blocked permanently, which you seem to be able to check. It's disgusting for you to drag up my past and make out like I'm here as a current sockpuppet as well as make out I'm "proud" of my block. I assure you, I do not use that account, and never will. I'm not interested in having multiple accounts which is why I changed the password to a long number that I'll never remember (I don't know how to delete an account). You are extremely hypocritical and quote guidelines to me when it suits you or helps you. I did not edit it to make a point, I edited so it would be the original version of the page that I wrote. The simple reason was that you slyly revert, you'll add things to it to make it harder for me to restore my version, should the discussion weight in my favour—not that you're interested in discussion. You also slyly revert and lie in edit summaries. On "Pan Am" you were making changes and slyly removed something I'd done—and not mentioned that part in your summary—hoping I wouldn't notice. On a closing note, I would like to work with you on pages, but you seem to think you're the only one who can be heated and if I try and have a discussion you will ignore or remove unless it's full of major praise. Sometimes you won't like a discussion—ignoring it to get your own way is bad faith and bad editing. I would request that once read you either respond on my talk-page or not at all as I'm not interested in clogging up Bignole's talk-page, I simply felt the need to defend these accusations. Jayy008 (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Bignole, I see you manage the Smallville article terribly well. I'm thinking about de-watchlisting the page to have a clear out. Are you going to continue to manage the article in the current fashion you do? Jayy008 (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'll be monitoring the page for as long as I'm on Wikipedia. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Unjust image deletions by an editor
Will you help out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Editor unjustly tagging images for deletion? Going by the rationale given for deleting this image, for example, it would mean that the infobox image used for Jason Voorhees should be deleted if it does not obtain explicit permission from the website or companies which released the Jason movies. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Template:Marvel Animated Universe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)