User talk:Fortdj33/Archive 2

Canadian comics workgroup

Hi, I'm glad you signed the guestbook to show support for the Canadian comics workgroup. I started setting up the related pages before realizing I had to get approval from WP:CMC first. I announced it on the Project discussion page, but nobody showed interest, so I gave it up, since I'd need an administrator to add the workgroup to the project header. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I stumbled across the project page, because I noticed the Category:Canadian comics creator stubs while cleaning up the Category:Comics creator stubs. Since you've already created some of the associated pages, you could submit an edit request to have the project added to the Wikibanner here. Check out the template talk page to see the request I made, in creating the Batman work group. Making a formal request will allow people to add articles to the project, by including "Canadian-work-group=yes" in the banner template. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I made the request (I hope there weren't any copy & paste errors). Thanks for your help! CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:G.I. Joe stubs

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Dawynn (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter

The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Buddy the Gee Man

Ahoy, there! Thanks for adding Buddy the Gee Man to the animation project. Now, would it be any trouble to you to add the other Buddy cartoons to the project? We would greatly appreciate that, if it is possible. I thank you again. Twozenhauer (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you would ask me specifically, since I'm not really familiar with the subject matter, I just happened to stumble across the article while updating the classification of some comics articles. But since I am a member of both the animation and film projects, and there weren't too many of them to update, consider it:

 Done. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's great! It all seems so complete now. Thanks. Twozenhauer (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I see that you recently rated the importance of two articles, List of fictional dogs in animation and List of fictional cats in animation. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but... shouldn't an article rated as "bottom" importance actually /not/ belong under the project? Just wondering... Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the importance system on Wikipedia is completely arbitrary, but I rated both of those articles at "bottom" importance, simply because of their size in relation to the thousands of other articles in {{WikiProject Animation}}. You can see the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Assessment#Importance scale for more information, but you are welcome to change them to "low" if you disagree with my assessment. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I was only curious. =] Thanks for rating though! Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Lesser Known British Comic Strips for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lesser Known British Comic Strips is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesser Known British Comic Strips until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rubiscous (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:United Kingdom comics stubs

In case you hadn't yet seen my comment at WP:CFD/S, I wanted to repeat it here before removing the listing from that page: the category is now listed at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2012/February/2. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Advice

Hi Fortdj33,

I saw you added a stub tag to a page I have been working on and look like an established member of Wikipedia. I was wondering if you had any advice or could help me in making sure the Plo Koon page meets general guidelines of notability or, if you think it already does commenting on the talk page which currently has another comment arguing its lack of notability. I have expanded it, added an image, and sourced galore but another user believes that the character is non notable. I could use some help in getting the article the way it needs to be to prevent users arguing for its deletion. If you know anyone else that would be willing to help would be great. Thanks for your time, --CPacker ^{talk to me} 07:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of films considered the best for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of films considered the best is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the best until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Buffy comic book covers

Category:Buffy comic book covers, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film's January–February Newsletter

The January 2012 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the distribution list. GRAPPLE X 00:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Curious about importance

Hi, I was just curious why Kalimán was set to low importance for WikiProject Mexico. I've seen him referred to as a national icon so I was surprised. Not contesting it, just mildly surprised. Cloveapple (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't profess to know much about Kalimán, I was simply updating the classification of articles in {{WikiProject Comics}}, and the default that I use for importance is "low". I figure that if an article was more important than that, it would have already been assessed by now...Of course, the classification system on Wikipedia is completely arbitrary, so feel free to change it for WikiProject Mexico if you feel that it's necessary. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Kalimán is about as big an icon in Mexico as Superman is in the US. So I'll go check how Superman's rated for the US and follow that model. Cloveapple (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Thorndyke

You cited WP:NCP in your edit summary moving from Dr Thorndyke to Dr. Thorndyke but that guideline seems to require Doctor Thorndyke. Incidentally, "Dr" is a contraction not a shortening and so MOS:ABBR prefers the form without the full stop for text. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I should have cited MOS:ABBR instead, which actually states that either "Dr." or "Dr" is acceptable. But modern style is to use a full stop (period) after a contraction, which puts the article more in line with all the other articles about fictional doctors, and makes text easier to read. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lurue

The article Lurue has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no third party sourcing to indicated the subject meets WP:N

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. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like there had been a discussion to merge and leave a redirect. So I am removing the PROD. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Dispute March 2012

Hey sorry to bother you but we just settled the editing dispute before you undid the last revision and was adding template messages when you undid the revision. Please do not do it again the improvements made to the article meet Wikipedia guidelines have been reference and is completely free of use information. If you respond to this please send me a message I will not check back on your page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OllyOctagon (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It does not look like the dispute has been settled, since you are continuing to engage in an edit war on General Joseph Colton, instead of trying to come to a consensus on the talk page. That type of editing is not helpful or constructive, and definitely does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Please consider taking it to the talk page of that article, before asking other editors to refrain from editing. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I really don't think I did anything so earthshaking, but I appreciate the sentiment very much. Thanks for being so thoughtful and gracious! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not that your edits were "earthshaking", but if you've seen the dialogue at Talk:Avengers (comics) about that information, you'll understand why I put it where I did on the movie article. I'm just glad that another knowledgeable editor was able to clean it up, rather than simply disregard it, as some unregistered editors have done. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion with a sock

FYI, normally sock edits are to be reverted on sight and not replied to. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I was in the middle of writing my reply when you reverted the talk page, so my submission actually reinstated the comments that I was replying to! In any event, I am aware that all edits by sock puppets are automatically reverted, but at that time user 141.151.245.202 had not been proven to be a sock yet, and I felt that the comment added by 141.151.247.70, while probably from the same user, deserved a response. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for the clarification. I reported yet another one. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Joseph B. Colton (April 18, 2012)

I saw your discussion on the General Joseph Colton talk page. I just thought I should inform you that although the other Wiki's are editable by anyone the http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Joe_Colton seems to have fitting sources. You may want to check with the authors of that website. -CoolBeans 141.151.245.180 (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The link provided, does not show any references that support the inclusion of Brady as the character's middle name. Plus, a look at the history of the Transformers Wiki page for Joe Colton [1], reveals that the middle name "Brady" was added fairly recently, by an IP address very similar to yours...Sorry, but changing other wikis to support your POV on Wikipedia is not going to work. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I do not follow, are you saying you edited the Wiki with my ip address? How is it possible for you to do that? And second of all you also neglected to include his middle initial which is confirmed from the file card and completely ignored adding it to his page entirely. You should revert it to Joseph B. Colton which is verified from before the sock puppetry of JHerbertMunster began. Also I suggest a renaming of the article as well to match standard naming conventions of the articles for United States Generals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.245.180 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No, if you follow this link, it's obvious that you added that information to the Transformers wiki about 3 weeks ago, because the IP address that was used is so similar to the one you are using now (and very similar to several that were blocked as sock puppets of JHerbertMunster for that matter). I noticed similar sock puppetry on the G.I. Joe wiki as well. While you are entitled to your opinion, your time would be better served by finding a reliable source that backs up the information you are trying to add. And please present that information on the talk page for General Joseph Colton, do no use my personal talk page to push your POV. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection has been added to the talk page so that is not possible. I still do not see how you can mask yourself under my ip address though? You should revert the edit to General Joseph B. Colton on the General Joseph Colton. 141.151.245.180 (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The semi-protection on the article General Joseph Colton and its talk page, are because of your constant attempts to push your POV on WikiPedia. I have not done anything in regards to your IP address, I simply provided evidence of you trying to get around being blocked. Please do not make edits based on your assumptions, and please do not contact me on my talk page again. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphan tag

Hi. I've removed the orphan tag from Hot Stuff (1971 film) per Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria, which states "It is recommended to only place the {{orphan}} tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles." It is linked to from the director's article. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice to members of WikiProject Comics of a discussion of interest at Talk:Blackmark (novel)#Move?. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

AWB and spacing

This is relating to Ed Cox (artist), but noticed you are doing the same to other articles.

We are not supposed to use AWB to only do spacing. If spacing is the only changes, then we cannot make changes and save. People have been blocked for doing this.

Also, spacing in some of these cases is preferred. In Persondata, spacing is the preferred method and several infobox are the same way. Having spaces can increase the readability of the article.

I understand the reason for removing the spacing... lowers the file size so it comes across the internet faster. Believe me, I used to do that for web pages in the modem days. Bgwhite (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I am aware that AWB should not be used ONLY for spacing. On the D&D articles, it was my intention to add stub tags where appropriate, and I have been using the function to "Fix all excess whitespace" while I'm at it, but only because I am editing the article anyway. I will try to be more careful on the spacing, for the rest of the stubs that I plan to run through AWB. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, turn off the "Fix all excess whitespace". Unless it becomes policy somewhere, we shouldn't be doing it all because there is no reason and people get pissed off about it. I've also turned off "auto tag" (under "options" in the bottom middle screen) because I got tired of the complaints. To alot of people, AWB=evil and will automatically hate you. Giving them a tiny excuse with a white space or a tag can make them to go after you.

User:Kumioko and User:Magioladitis have gotten alot of grief and been taken to ANI on a regular basis over making "trivial" edits. I've been threatened multiple times because they saw an edit they didn't agree with or understand... real reason was they saw AWB in the comment line.

It looks like you are using an older version of AWB. I suggest you get the latest SVN version. 9 months worth of changes have gone into the newer version. I usually run a SVN version.Bgwhite (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I haven't run into any problems with other editors because of using AWB, but I appreciate your concern and the link to the updated version. I have upgraded my AWB software, and removed the spacing criteria from my edit summaries. Can't promise that I won't make any more "trivial" edits, but at least now they will be justified by the other edits that I'm making. Thanks again! Fortdj33 (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I too make occasional "trivial" edits. Usually, it is to make the wikicode legible. You must work in a more obscure part of wikiland. I go over all new biographies, so I get a broad spectrum of, um, "nice" editors. Good luck. Bgwhite (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team which organizes offline releases of Wikipedia. We're trying to identify which members are still active, so we can start to work on our next general offline release, Version 0.9, being discussed here. Please add your comments to the discussion, and let us know here if you would like to be involved. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Joe Colton

Other than the disputed name.... what do you see wrong with my other edits, such as the update to the G.I. Joe Retaliation movie details?

General Colton will be portrayed by Bruce Willis in the sequel, G.I. Joe: Retaliation. The movie is scheduled for a June 29th, 2012 release through collaboration of Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks. The movie will also spawn a new line of action figures by Hasbro to accompany the film.

I expanded on it and added a reference which everything before was practically speculation since it was never cited. And what is wrong with the addition of the Character inspiration section of the article? It seperates the Kennedy extras which I provided a reference to the exact comic book issue, which you can read on the exact site other information in the General Joseph Colton article is cited. So what is wrong with these two edits? If you cannot agree on the name can you at least agree on allowing these edits so the article is expanded a little? Leave a message on my talk page so I know when you respond and thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleSteak (talk • contribs) 13:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the movie information specifically, but the Kennedy information is pure original research. Plus, all of it was poorly formatted, and combined with the fact that you have been reverted several times for pushing your POV on the article, I decided to just simply return it to its last accepted version. I am happy to discuss the improvement of the article on the article's talk page, but if you continue to push your POV without coming to a consensus, it will be reported as vandalism. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Fair enough. I can see your point even though that is it's common name for now. I really think that it needs to be it's known where the main section though because editors keep on mistaking where the main place to edit it is at...but there's nothing I can do about it now until the film actually has a title. Anyways happy editing to you. I appreciate your work. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

...and let's face it. That is the common search term for it. So I guess that's what I was thinking on the top of my head. I wouldn't consider it so premature personally. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Joseph B. Colton

AHHAHAA!!! I got the reference for you now!!! http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1683336/gi-joe-retaliation-bruce-willis.jhtml There is a second reliable source for the name "Joseph B. Colton" so now I have verifiable evidence. Please respond on the talk page! Talk:General Joseph Colton

TAS video game.

Headpalm myself. I don't know how I got the year messed up on my page move. If it's ok I am going to request speedy deletion on those redirections of my uncontroversial page move. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, it happens to the best of us. I already fixed the links, for the articles that were using that redirect. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed because quite a few of them were on my watchlist. Kudos on the quick thinking. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Canadian work group

Hey, thanks for taking the time to add articles to the Canadian work group of WikiProject Comics. Some of the pages you added, however, don't actually fall under that category---Black Kiss and Berlin (comics) were published by Canadian companies, but the contents themselves were American (Black Kiss was by Howard Chaykin and Berlin is by Jason Lutes).

Anyways, thanks again for helping out. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, please feel free to correct anything that I may have tagged incorrectly. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

Why are you tagging redirects with the Simpsons Wikiproject tag? It seems incredibly pointless. Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of consistency, some of those characters were already tagged as redirects in {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}. Making sure that they are all included in the same projects, increases the likelihood that they can be expanded on by other editors. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

But redirects aren't supposed to be expanded...? I don't see the point in tagging redirects with Wikiproject tags. Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of any WikiProject is "to better organize and expand information" in articles related to the project. And per WP:Redirect, redirects take up minimal disk space, and may even avoid the creation of duplicate articles on the same subject, thereby actually saving data space. Most WikiProjects have a "Redirect-Class" specifically for this reason, and I see no harm in making sure that redirects pertaining to Simpsons characters, are tagged with the appropriate WikiProject banners. Even if there is a remote chance that they will ever be expanded, it still organizes them in a way that makes them more visible to editors who may have interest in that information. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jub Jub, 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 read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Drmargi (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the warning, but I have been editing on Wikipedia for over 3 years, and I am unclear how my edit to that disambiguation page can be considered vandalism. I simply added a disambiguous link to the page, and then reorganized the page to be more in line with MOS:DAB, considering each entry should have only one blue link per MOS:DABENTRY. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

File:The Longest Daycare.png

Accuracy Both categories are equally accurate and neither one is a child of the other, so I don't see how they're redundant. I don't see how or why I could choose one of the two categorization schemes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that both categories are accurate for many of the images associated with WikiProject Simpsons, the point is that BOTH categories, are children of Category:The Simpsons images. Therefore, any maintenance that includes The Simpsons images and all of its sub-categories, will include The Longest Daycare.png TWICE. This may not be a big deal to you, but this image is the only one being categorized this way, and including one image in the same project twice is redundant. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Right But WikiProject The Simpsons isn't the only WikiProject. E.g. Category:The_Simpsons_screenshots is a child of several categories and the way that non-free media are used across Wikipedia is contingent upon its origin, etc. Since this is both a title card and derived from a broadcast screenshot, it fits the inclusion criteria of both categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Beast Wars characters

Hey, when you get a chance, please take a look at List of Beast Wars characters, as I would like your opinion. It took me quite a bit of time, and is intended to replace the many Beast Wars lists currently on WP. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:DRN

I am a volunteer clerk/mediator at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. As you have no doubt observed, I am having a lot of trouble with a certain individual who refuses to talk about article content. I am guessing that this same oppositional and defiant attitude has made it hard to address the dispute on the article talk page.

You can help by posting a brief comment about a specific change in article content that you want added or removed and ignoring all efforts to get you to talk about anything else. It has been my experience that solving the content dispute often solves the conduct issues as well.

If the behavior problems continue after we have made a good-faith effort to mediate the content dispute, I can guide you through the steps needed to enforce Wikipedia behavioral policies, including blocking users if needed. I have not yet looked at the actual article or its talk page, so without making assumptions one way or another, I advise that you make sure that your own behavior is squeaky clean. Not saying it isn't squeaky clean now, just letting you know that it will be looked at. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the recent bad behavior directed at you, I am changing my advice: Stop responding. Let me and other uninvolved editors handle this. After seeing what just happened at WQA, I don't believe that Snakebyte42 has the self control needed to work with others on Wikipedia. What is going to happen now is a series of warnings, followed by a series of blocks of increasing length, followed by an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia. Of course we hope that somewhere along the line Snakebyte42 will start following Wikipedia's standards; if that happens he/she will be put on a short leash with zero tolerance for future behavior. You should not be subjected to this sort of abuse, and I am going to personally see to it that the abuse stops. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. After our discussion on DRN, I was ready to move on. But when he made vulgar comments against me afterwards, I could not just let it slide. I was just about to reply to his statement at WQA, but per your suggestion I will stay out of it, until a third party decides that it's necessary to hear my side of things again. Thanks again for all of your help! Fortdj33 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:WQA

Hello, Fortdj33. I'm sure you have been monitoring the WQA thread involving the DRN thread (and hopefully reading the comments I directed at you) and User:Snakebyte42. As you're doubtless aware, the issue seems to be largely resolved at this point, but we haven't gotten your input on it, so I want to give you a chance to address the content in question. You can do so on the WQA thread or the DRN thread, and I'll make sure that the discussion stays civil. Snakebyte seems to have redacted his most inflammatory statements, so we'll leave it at that. His conduct has already been addressed, so there's no need to bring it up again. If you have anything you'd like to add to the discussion, please make sure it does not involve that user's conduct, even if he doesn't extend you the same courtesy. I'm not "fussing at you"; I (and others) have told Snakebyte the same thing. He is not an experienced user, so he's still learning his way around. That doesn't excuse personal attacks, of course, but at this point, he has retracted those statements for the most part. I'm not accusing you of anything - just echoing what Guy told you about being careful about your own behavior without worrying about his. Thanks, and keep up your hard work on Wikipedia! Sleddog116 (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sleddog116, with all due respect, I fail to see what purpose it would serve for me to post anything more on the DRN thread. As you point out, the content issue seems to have pretty much been resolved, and it was made clear that we shouldn't discuss anything there other than content. In fact, Snakebyte42 and I have already made edits based on that discussion. So as I stated to Guy Macon above, I was ready to move on, until Snakebyte42 escalated things on the List of The Punisher comics talk page, which is what prompted the WQA.

As for the WQA, I am reluctant to add anything to the discussion there, because it will most likely just set Snakebyte42 off again. Honestly, I don't understand why he got so worked up over a content dispute, which could have easily been solved on the talk page, if he had just tried to come to a consensus, instead of arguing about how we got there in the first place! And I apologize for my part in that, because I didn't take into account that he was new to Wikipedia, and when I tried to point out that he wasn't following Wikipedia policy, I might not have presented it the right way. But from what I've read at the WQA, Snakebyte42 has not accepted any responsibility for what happened, he only stated that he'll try to be civil, if I take back my comments first. Just because he redacted his statements, does not mean that I did anything to deserve the vulgar comments that he made against me. Again, I'm truly sorry that things got so out of hand, but if continuing this discussion is just going to bring more of the same, thank you but I'll pass... Fortdj33 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Honestly, I don't understand why he got so worked up over a content dispute, which could have easily been solved on the talk page, if he had just tried to come to a consensus, instead of arguing about how we got there in the first place!" << Again, I did, repeatedly. You refused to address article content and later denied that I had provided any. That is why I got so worked up. I don't know how to state this any more clearly. I certainly accept responsibility, just not sole responsibility. That's all I came here to say and I'm not trying to add fuel to any fires by following you to your talk page or harrassing you. Leaving now. Wait, first: We're more or less good as far as consensus is concerned, right? I wouldn't want to say you're supporting something you're not.Snakebyte42 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that we have a consensus regarding the content dispute, but please do not come to my talk page to argue about who started it. I already apologized for my part in our disagreement, and I have no desire to continue the debate with you here. We've already wasted enough time on this misunderstanding, so let's just learn from it, and get on with improving Wikipedia. Fortdj33 (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. As I said, that's all I came here to say. Your comment made it seem like you didn't understand something I thought I had expressed, so I explained. I'm also not trying to say you started it; my inexperience, and your unawareness of my inexperience, is what started it, I'd say. I think that assumes initial good faith for both parties. That was just an answer to the question of 'why I got so worked up', not an assignation of blame. Sorry for troubling you both specifically and in general. This is my last comment here, and I hope the rest of your day, or tomorrow as the case may be, is more enjoyable. Snakebyte42 (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Scoring system??

Hi. This is Saurabh Agrawal. Thanks for upgrading the quality scale for the article Super Commando Dhruva. The article was in pretty bad shape about a couple of months ago. I've been working hard on it since then because i'm very passionate about this character. Would like to improve it further. I was wondering about the importance scale. When i checked the list of C class low importance project, i saw a score for every article on the right side. I would like to know how does this scoring works, who gives these scores, and how can they be improved? Also who decides the importance scale of an article and on what basis?Skagrawal4k (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the quality and importance ratings are arbitrary, but they are usually based on the content of the article, and its size in relation to other articles in the project. As for the scores on the toolserver, I am not entirely clear how those are assigned, but I believe they are used by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, to select articles for an offline release version of Wikipedia. Hope that helps! Fortdj33 (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I am still working on the article. As you seem to be a member of comic project on wiki, hope to get guidance from you towards improving the quality of the article.Skagrawal4k (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Roboassess

Hi

I noticed that you have changed some of the assessments on Robotics projects banners. While this is of no real concern, it seems that one in may have been ill-advised; the article on Radio-controlled model.

You may not have bothered to read the whole talk page, but if you go back there you may notice that the Robotics banner has the "Attention needed" symbol. Any of our banners that display the symbol should have a corresponding post on the talk page to explain what attention is needed. In this case it was this:

• Check through (Refs, content, copyedit)
• Add detail if necessary
• Reassess

For example, the whole article only has 5 refs - an impossibly low amount for such a vast topic, and one which has thousands of books and magazine articles on it in publication.

As you can see, the article has only 5 refs - something which caused me concern and made me demote it to a start class. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article could use some additional references, and I don't profess to be an expert on radio-controlled models. I updated the article to C-class simply because of its size, when I added it to WikiProject Toys. Thank you for the heads up, and for leaving the {{WikiProject Toys}} banner. I will adjust the talk page accordingly. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Character point

The article Character point has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Stale article; nowhere meeting guidelines for the past several years.

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. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 08:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

More GI Joe / Colton nonsense

I'm telling you since you seem to know the history and bigger picture of an ongoing sockpuppet situation around GI Joe and General Joseph Colton. User:96.233.254.92 is making the same edits as previous editors (who have been blocked for vandalism). - Special-T (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, it definitely looks like that IP address is another sockpuppet. Since I have reverted those exact same edits on those articles before, you are welcome to reopen the SPI for JHerbertMunster yourself, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Or, if you're not interested in getting involved, just let me know and I'll be happy to follow up on the issue. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if you could follow up - I'm busy in real life and unfamiliar with the process. Note the many identical vandalism edits to Kennedy family from 96.2XX... IP addresses. - Special-T (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All the IP addresses that have added that information have been reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JHerbertMunster. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. - Special-T (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Fortdj33. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Calmer Waters 04:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Warning! ‎68.45.241.10 good faith alert!

hello? the good faith vandal ip ‎68.45.241.10 has struck again! keep an eye on what this criminal is doing, plz! Visokor (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

C.J. Freezer

I don't know how familiar you are with this man or his career, but would argue that model railways do not belong in the category "toys". Some might at an early stage of development but the full layout with scenery and historical research does not fit well in the "toy" category. Britmax (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit, I am not familiar with the life of C. J. Freezer. But his article was tagged as a stub because it needs to be expanded, and the only reason I added the {{WikiProject Toys}} banner to his article, is because the tag {{Model-rail-stub}} is included in Category:Toy stubs. I was just trying to clean up the stubs in the Toys project and make sure that they are properly sorted, but feel free to remove it if you think it will cause a problem. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Storylines/Limited series

Hi. Sorry to bother you but I don't really know where to go with my query so I came to you as you are one of the comics project member. I was wondering how does one classify a comics series into 'Limited series' and 'Storyline'. As I believe they both have a continous story arc and consist of multiple issues. For example, in this template, spiderman multi issue story arcs have been classified in two classes, limited series and storylines. Similar classification has been done for other heroes as well. Kindly help. Thanks in advance. Skagrawal4k (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you ever have a question about comic books in general, you can always post it on the WikiProject Comics talk page. But to answer your question, the difference between a "limited series" and a "storyline", is that a limited series is usually a self-contained title that runs for a finite number of issues. For example, Spider-Man: With Great Power is only about the five issues that had that title. Storylines however, usually crossover into multiple titles, such as "Spider-Man: One More Day", which starts in The Amazing Spider-Man #544, continues in Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man #24 and The Sensational Spider-Man (vol. 2) #41, and concludes in Amazing Spider-Man #545. Of course this is not set in stone, and some limited series also tie into current stoyrlines, such as the 3-issue limited series Spider-Man: The Lost Years, which ties into the "Clone Saga" storyline. Hope that helps, and is not too confusing! Fortdj33 (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

umm, it is actually a bit confusing, but I think I got it. So basically, storyline is a part of an ongoing series? Like if a story runs from, say, The Amazing Spiderman #687 to #689, then it's a storyline, but a limited series would not be numbered #690. It would be a completely different series. And a storyline can be a single issue story as well, provided it's numbered The Amazing Spiderman #690 and has got a special title. Without title, it would be just another numbered comic book. Am I right? Skagrawal4k (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB

Can you please download and use latest revision of AWB found in http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ ? We encourage editors who use AWB often to have the latest snapshot to reduce number of bugs. Having the latest snapshot helps the developers of keeping tracks of new bugs and provides enwiki editors with updated list of features. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the last time that I downloaded the new version (which was back in April), I made use of the updated features, but there was a glitch when I would try to add project banners to a talk page that hadn't been created yet. Instead of creating a new page, AWB would just give me an error, which is why I reverted to a version that I knew would work. I'll admit, I don't really know the proper way to report bugs like that, but if it has been fixed, then I will gladly download the new version. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm... you are right. Snapshots don't allow creation of newpages. At least not yet. Stick to the 5.3.0 version till we do something about that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion??

Hi. Would like to know the reason why you have marked some of the categories created by me for speedy deletion? Skagrawal4k (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoa!! Not some. You have marked almost all the categories created by me for speedy deletion. Can you take a break to give me an explanation and give me a chance to explain myself as well? Skagrawal4k (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it's nothing personal. Your question on the talk page for WikiProject Comics just brought attention to the fact that you had created several redundant categories, most of which were nested inside of each other, and could just as easily be covered by Category:Raj Comics. I consolidated the few articles you had tagged into existing categories, and tagged the categories that were no longer needed, because it's just not necessary to be that specific, and have multiple categories for each aspect of Dhruva comics. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I read the Criteria for deletion and I agree that the categories were underpopulated but I was going to populate them eventually. It would take some time. Besides, about categories being 'nested inside of eachother', I see that that's the general pattern on wiki for all comic book superheroes. Batman, spiderman, superman, x-men and many other, they all have such barrage of categories nested inside of eachother. Moreover, I've seen many categories on wiki that have only 3-4 pages in them and have survived on wiki. I'd like to know-

1. Why can the above mentioned heroes have so many categories nested inside of eachother and not Dhruva?
2. How many pages are enough to call a category sufficiently populated?

Please answer my queries so that next time before creating any other category, I'd make sure that enough pages exist to populate it. Skagrawal4k (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you created all those categories in good faith, but I think that you got carried away and went a little overboard. Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, etc. are not really good examples for comparison. I agree that they all have redundant categories, but A.) they're not supposed to, B.) they are all arguably much more notable that Dhruva, and C.) just because other stuff exists, doesn't justify creating multiple categories without showing that they are needed. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I created those categories as I wanted to build a good indian superhero article by emulating these existing GA and FA class western superheroes articles. May be I went overboard. But I don't understand a few things. WP:notability is regarding the notability of an article, not about category. I agree that they are all much more notable than Dhruva but that doesn't validate the existence of their redundant categories either. I read the criteria enlisted in WP:OC, and all the categories created by me didn't fall into any of those criteria except for the fact that they were unpopulated, an issue that i was going to address in due course. Besides the very WP:OSE suggests that the encyclopaedia should be consistent in the content that it provides. Anyways, thanks for taking back your nomination on a couple of categories and also for renaming the article on character Chandika. I was myself thinking about nominating Chandika (Raj comics) to merge with Chandika (comics). On my part, I can assure you that next time I'd create a category only if it doesn't fall into any of the WP:OC criteria and there are enough pages to populate it. Skagrawal4k (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Which is the better table; this or this? Feel free to comment on the articles talk page. Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just letting you know, Shoxee1214 has proposed another change.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

colton article

sorry was not aware im just editing articles that were edited by my ip address from my shared network, i added two more sentences from that filecard website to his profile, but whys there no picture for retaliation like the rest of the gi joe articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatCouldaBeen (talk • contribs) 11:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

what deo you mean?

i added that he is experienced in LAW Light Antitank Weapons and Attack helicopters and that other soldiers were passed over for the elite presidential appointment? i litterally copied that almost word for word from his file card to his profile... read the file card again General Joseph Colton — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatCouldaBeen (talk • contribs) 01:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Creaating separate pages for new Marvel NOW! comic Books

actually i m not master in creating wikipedia articles so i want to ask can u create separate pages for titles like "A+X", "All-New X-Men", "Thor God of Thunder", "Indestructible Hulk" ?? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, all of those titles do not need new articles. As discussed on the talk page for WikiProject Comics, several of the new titles just redirect to the article for the main characters, since they are simply the newest titles starring that character. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

ok i got ur point then why there is separate article for Superman (comic book),uncanny x-men,flash (comic book) etc ????

Because those titles have been around long enough to be notable on their own. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

sorry i am new but can u tell me wikipedia is about notability or good information?

Questions on WikiProjects

Hi. I have a question: I noticed that some pages that you tag for certain Wikiprojects are redirects. Are you sure these projects tag redirects? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all the projects that I am a member of use the Redirect-class as part of the project. But it is always more accurate to update the classification of a redirect as "redirect-class", than to leave it as a "Stub-class" when there is no article attached to it. If the article is ever resurrected, then the classification on the talk page can be updated accordingly. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. I am referring to the pages that were not tagged before you tag them. I left a note to the WP:WikiProject Soap Operas for clarification. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been dividing my time between several wikiprojects, and I wasn't sure which one you were referring to. The redirect-class was recently added to the Soap Opera project, and several of the British soap operas, such as Coronation Street, East Enders, Holly Oaks, etc. already have all their redirected characters tagged as redirect-class. I am only adding to those redirects that already exist, by including them in WikiProject Soap operas and WikiProject Fictional characters, so that they can be properly organized. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback (September 2012)

Since you argued oppose based on consistency, I should point out that this is just one step in renaming the 'video games based on foo' tree to be consistent with 'video games based on foo' for all subcategories. It's just being done one tree at a time. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how I am trying to "demolish" anything, just because I don't agree with your proposal. And I understand where you're coming from, in trying to make all the categories consistent for video games based on comics. But from the standpoint of making all the sub-categories for "foo (comics)" be consistent, I don't think that the video game categories should be different than all the other media categories for comic book characters. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm Walker (New Zealand) moved to Malcolm Walker (cartoonist)

I see that you moved Malcolm Walker (New Zealand) to Malcolm Walker (cartoonist). I chose the former because he is known as an architect and cartoonist. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose he could have just as easily been moved to "Malcolm Walker (architect)", but since I was cleaning up stub-class articles in {{WikiProject Comics}}, and the little bit of information in that article was all about him being a cartoonist, that is what I chose. Either way, (New Zealand) was not the appropriate disambiguation for a biographical article, per WP:NCPDAB. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Christmas hit singles in the United States article: recent edits

Hello Chad:

Thank you for all your contributions and edits to this wonderful reference list, both recently and over the last few years. I'm planning to also fill in the gaps to the list soon, by adding some Christmas/holiday singles that charted on Billboard magazine's various music publication charts over the years, but are still not listed. I'd also like to remove some items in the list that never charted, even if they were released as singles in the United States (and there still are some of these). Just wanted to give you a heads up. Do you think we should limit the list to only include singles that charted on at least one the music industry's trade periodicals? If necessary, I can update the Discussion page for the article to solicit feedback? I personally don't like listing singles that never charted, because then the list becomes too subjective.

Also, would you be oppposed if I made a global replacement of the # symbol (used for chart position peaks) with No.? This is the standard that the columnists, bloggers and editors use at billboard.com when refering to chart positions.

Thanks. --Sliv812 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well personally, I don't think that the list should be limited to just those songs that appeared on the Billboard charts. If that was the case, then the article would be named "List of Billboard Christmas singles in the United States". No, I think that non-charted singles are OK, as long as the song was released as a single. Several songs are still there without Billboard chart information, because they were specifically released as 45s, promotional singles for movies, etc. As far as replacing # with "No.", I don't have a problem with that, as long as it is done universally and consistently. That's just my opinion, feel free to take your issues to the talk page of the article, if you want more of a consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

GI Joe : A Real American Hero characters removal?

Fortdj33,

Nice work on the GI Joe pages! Question, I saw that you removed the GI Joe vs Cobra lines, as well as the two movie lines from the GI Joe: A Real American Hero page. Should we also remove the characters from the List of GI Joe : A Real American Hero page as well (those were made from 2002-2007)? Redjacket3827 (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of contradicting myself, I think that the info should remain on the List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters page, only because it is not really displayed that way anywhere else. The info that I removed from G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero was already covered by the generic G.I. Joe article, so I felt having it in both places was redundant. Some of those lines have their own articles, but I'm open to suggestions on how to best display that information, for the toylines that are not specifically A Real American Hero. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:MiddleEarth-stub

Hi there. I just noticed that you made this new template. Did you know that there is already a {{Tolkien-stub}} that has so far been used on all Middle-earth articles? The messages reads "This article related to J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium is a stub", so I don't think we need a specific ME stub. De728631 (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do realize that there is a {{Tolkien-stub}}, but most of the articles in Category:Tolkien stubs were related to Middle-earth specifically, and not Tolkien in general. The stub tags were created to be more specific about Middle-earth related articles, especially Middle-earth character stubs, which I have been tagging as part of {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}. Besides, Category:Middle-earth stubs is still a sub-category of Category:Tolkien stubs, and is more in line with all the other sub-categories of Category:Middle-earth. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I still think this is unnecessary fine-tuning of categories and it may be confusing for the general reader. And there are also a lot of stubs that are not directly related to Middle-earth as such but to Beleriand rather, or Númenor, so in my opinion the broad approach with "Tolkien's legendarium" seems better suited to tag such articles. It seems though that you're currently checking the approximately 300 articles in Category:Stub-Class Tolkien articles if they can be tagged with either template, and that's an honourable effort. I noticed that there are still lots of pages classified as stubs while they are actually a redirect now so I'm going to look into that. De728631 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't profess to know a lot about Tolkien or Middle-earth related articles, but I do think that it's important for all stub articles to be properly tagged and classified. And I agree that any stub articles not directly related to Middle-earth should use the {{Tolkien-stub}}, but I think that Category:Middle-earth stubs is still useful. I populated the category, by using the toolserver to catch the most obvious stub articles, especially character articles using {{MiddleEarth-char-stub}}. Checking all of the stub-class articles in {{WikiProject Middle-earth}} hadn't occurred to me, but right now I'm mainly concerned with cleaning up all the stub-class articles in {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}, and I will fix any redirects as I find them. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Ballad of G.I. Joe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Ballad of G.I. Joe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ballad of G.I. Joe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject redirects

Any reason that you are removing wikiproject banners from redirects? What's the advantage of not having them included in the Wikiproject (and its alerts and so on)? Fram (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessary to add EVERY SINGLE redirect to the project, especially for links that are just multiple variations in spelling. Therefore, I have been redirecting these pages to the appropriate talk pages, because I don't see the advantage of needlessly adding wikiproject banners to talk pages, for redirects that are unlikely to become articles or be discussed separately. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a reason not to add them. Any reason to actively remove them though? Seems like overkill, once they are tagged, it's hardly an improvement of any kind to remove the tag again... Fram (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone needlessly added all these redirects to several wikiprojects, by creating talk pages with banners, for EVERY variation in spelling that redirects to that page. I agree that they shouldn't have been added in the first place, but are you basically saying that since the damage has already been done, there's no advantage to cleaning them up? I disagree, and maybe I'm just being anal, but I don't see the advantage of having multiple redirects added to the project for, let say ONE episode of an animated series, when they all redirect to the same list of episodes. To me, that is redundant, and just clogs up search lists of redirects or wikiproject articles in general. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the twinkle...

...but I was just giving some info about the anime. ~~LDEJRuff~~ 16:36, 18 October, 2012 (UTC)

Nothing personal, trivia information like that just doesn't belong on an encyclopedia article, especially without a reference... Fortdj33 (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Page move

I'm not sure if this page move was proper. The original article location, 111 First Street. From Paris to Jersey City, they showed no love. reflects the actual full title of the film. It doesn't really matter -- I've PROD'ed the article for lack of notability, but I'm still curious. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:PRECISE, the title of an article should be a search term that unambiguously defines the topic of the article, but no longer than necessary. It is unlikely that someone would completely type in "111 First Street. From Paris to Jersey City, they showed no love." when looking for that film. Since there is no other film titled 111 First Street on Wikipedia, the full title of the film is not necessary for disambiguation. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), "If a film does not share its title with any other topic on Wikipedia, title the article after the film's title." WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you feel it's necessary to argue about this on my talk page, but the film DOES share its title with another topic on Wikipedia. The disambiguation "(film)" is sufficient enough to differentiate it from the article about 111 First Street, and even the movie's website lists that as the title! The rest is simply a subtitle, and not necessary for disambiguation of the film. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with wikipedia, but the title of this movie is: 111 First Street. From Paris to Jersey City, they showed no love. Would you call a Rolls Royce a Rolls only?, or a coca cola a coca only page? This title does not have a subtitle. The whole thing is the title. One assumes it is a movie about eviction or a building's address or history of a building -which is not- , and the other goes and violates a copyrighted name of a movie. Wikipedia mentions very clearly that notability for a documentary movie, can be based on the notability of the participants, which this movie clearly shows, that takes away the notability issue.Brankoab (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The notability of the film is a completely different subject, and should be discussed on the talk page of the article, not on my personal talk page! But I did not assume anything about the content of the film, and I stand by my renaming of the article, which is according to Wikipedia guidelines. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Filmography of Shivaji title

Greetings, you changed the title to "Shivaji Maharaj filmography", stating Proper title in line with other filmographies. However, I disagree, as there are numerous articles starting with "Filmography of...". Further, it is not necessary to add the honorific to the title, note the primary article is simply Shivaji. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It may seem arbitrary to you, but most of the filmographies on Wikipedia use the format "John Smith filmography". I have found only a few links that don't use that format, such as Filmography of Oliver Hardy, Filmography of Stan Brakhage, Filmography of Abbas Kiarostami, etc. and they ALL redirect to Oliver Hardy filmography, Stan Brakhage filmography, Abbas Kiarostami filmography, etc. I'm sorry that I didn't know any better about the honorific title, but the format that I used is preferred. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film

FYI... {{WikiProject Film}} should not go on biography articles as the WikiProject does not include people. Instead, add |filmbio-work-group=yes to WikiProject Biography. Bgwhite (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit, I was being a little lazy, and just cutting and pasting banners that I had added to other articles. But thanks for the heads up, and I will remember that in the future! Fortdj33 (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Tristan

Could you please explain this rollback? --Jollyroger (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are for listing Wikipedia articles with similar titles, not for disambiguating the World-Wide Web. Your entry did not contain a link to an article with "Tristan" in the title, the summary was way too long, AND it contained an external link, all of which is against MOS:DAB. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A.J. Quartermaine

Please discuss the change before moving the page back. There was a discussion on the talk page for a few days regarding the move. While "A. J." may originate from his first and middle initial, "A.J." is his nickname, WP:COMMONNAME, and what reliable sources use to describe him, including the network. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The Fifth Element

The poster issue has evolved into a vote at Talk:The Fifth Element, if you'd care to weigh in. أنا أحبك (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Classification of film articles

Hi: On my way to bed here, so I thought I'd finally ask about something that's been puzzling me. Articles I have written tend to get classified as start class; you just classified Stukas and Schlußakkord that way for Wikiproject:Film. I've looked at the classification guidelines for various projects from time to time (I write articles on many different topics), and I just looked at those for film, and ... I still don't get why the low classification. In particular, both those articles have oodles of reliable sources and are well sectioned. What am I missing? Neither urgency nor criticism implied; I just thought I'd finally ask. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, please keep in mind that the Wikipedia 1.0 classification system is completely arbitrary. I have been updating the classification on a lot of films, based on their size in relation to the other thousands of articles in {{WikiProject Film}}. At second glance, both of the films you mentioned are very close to C-class (Stukas is the closer of the two), but I've found it's usually best to err on the conservative side, so that the article has a better chance of being expanded. I don't profess to know much about either film, but if you disagree with my classification, feel free to adjust them accordingly. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Aah, sheer length was indeed something I hadn't even thought about. Hmm. Neither of these is Casablanca, though I suppose a film expert might be able to say more about technique, style, and influences, and there may be material about foreign showings or absolute ticket sales numbers. Thanks for the response. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page for Super Kudumbam

Hi Chad, Thank you for creating the Talk page for Super Kudumbam movie. :)It will be very interesting to follow any future edits for the movie, as I am very new to the Wiki writing. amymy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amymy (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem, glad that I could help. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Avengers roster

I started a discussion at Talk:Avengers (comics)#Roster, that you maybe interested in. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Snake Eyes Resource Site link

Hi there, I still haven't figured out the login and talk page setup for wiki and frankly I don't have the time, so thanks for the invitation.

My site www.neoengel.com/snakeeyes was one of the original resources to build this page and I still thought it was a valid source.

No offense or spamming (I eat huge bandwidth costs around Hallowe'en :P) intended, just seems kinda cold to get shut out like this but if this is the direction the article is to take I guess that's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.4.6 (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't the first editor to remove your link, but it was nothing personal. Fansites like that just aren't valid external links for articles on Wikipedia. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

New version of AWB

An updated version of AWB is now available here. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Heya

In an attempt to get past the impasse that has been reached re the capitalisation of I in intro on the Star Trek into Darkness article, I have created two additional sub-sections where users can put their for/against argument comments in without getting caught up in Beating a dead horse. These sections are purely for providing reasons and not for arguing back and forth, although discussions are welcome to continue in the above section. If you could come and give your view that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 21:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Voting has started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek_into_Darkness#Requested_move — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 21:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. I was under the impression that it had already been agreed. Never mind. Just make sure you repeat your for/against comment so it doesnt "get lost" and then whatever the outcome the other side cant shout foul play. MisterShiney ✉ 21:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

G.I. Joe navbox

Two things... Can you point be to the Project level consensus? And wouldn't that consensus be betterserved by including all the articles in the 'box (with the possibility of separating something like the "Characters" sections out)? - J Greb (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it was around April of last year that I added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject G.I. Joe/Conventions, but I cannot remember where the actual discussion took place (possibly on the talk page of an article). I looked through the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject G.I. Joe, but the only other reference I can find, is at Wikipedia:WikiProject G.I. Joe#Templates, where it states to place the navbox "at the bottom of all articles relating to G.I. Joe". I understand that per WP:NAVBOX, "every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox", but what's the harm in having the navbox on G.I. Joe articles that aren't included in the template? Fortdj33 (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Primarily it's the intent of the 'box - to allow navigation around the related articles. With regard to placing the template on an article that isn't in it, that article can be navigated away from, but never to.

If WP GI Joe has come to the consensus that the template needs to be on the articles, it would be appropriate to place all of the articles into the template. In this case I've got no problem with that since it's the primary WP's intent. It also bypasses one of the issues of "popularity" raised on the templates talk page since all the character articles meeting GNG would wind up on the template.

If the template gets too large, the layout can be modified to provide 2 collapsing panes.

- J Greb (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Forĵak lede sentence

Thanks for catching that embarassing typo. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to embarrass you, I was just trying to help you prove your point. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No, no, it was ME that embarassed me; not you! It's appreciated. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding stub class to start

Article of puppet madter is a stub. There is no third party sources whatsoever and its just a direct copy of the article in the ghost in the shell wikia.Lucia Black (talk) 0ĥ5:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it needs to be cleaned up and/or expanded, but given the amount of content already in that article, it is definitely more than a stub. With all due respect, please read WP:STUB, and keep in mind that article classes can be arbitrary. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

the info is primarily in-universe and size barely matters. It can all be summarized and merged and on the note of expanding, ive looked but there really isnt any. Im planning to merge the article back to the main article soon considerimg the article is only a copy of wikia.Lucia Black (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection

Hello, I overhauled Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection by removing much of the trivia (for which I could not find reliable sources) and adding a "Shared themes" section. I think the article is in much better shape. While it is more sparse, I think there is a stronger case for having a stand-alone article as long as the standard is maintained. Please let me know at the AfD discussion what you think. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

David film Page move

Hi. David was shot in Hindi and Tamil simultaneously, but the Tamil plot is slightly different from Hindi plot. The difference between both version is the number of characters. The Tamil version has two Davids - a fisherman (played by Vikram), and a musician (played by Jiiva) whereas the Hindi version, apart from a fisherman (played by Vikram) and a musician (played by Vinay Virmani), has an additional David (played by Neil Nitin Mukesh), who is a gangster. In Tamil David the plot set in two different eras while in Hindi David the plot set in three different eras. Totally both the David movies are different. So only I have made Hindi and Tamil versions in a separate article. Please refer this link http://behindwoods.com/tamil-movie-news-1/dec-12-03/vikram-david-17-12-12.html So could you please undo your last action in David. Thank you for your understanding. Kannan.529 (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Wikipedia:Minchina Ota

Hello Fortdj33. There are two films with the same title. What would you think of a new system. Here are the proposed article titles:

1. Minchina Ota (1980 film). Currently at Wikipedia:Minchina Ota. Directed by Shankar Nag)
2. Minchina Ota (2008 film). Currently at Minchina Ota 2008. Directed by M. R. Ramesh,

There would be hatnotes at the top of each page to direct you to the other. Would this be acceptable? If you agree, I believe I could do this as a technical move. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that definitely would solve the disambiguation problem. The link Minchina Ota currently points to the 2008 film, but Minchina ota points to the 1980 film, so I'm not sure which one is the primary topic. I was not aware that there were two different films when I made the request, I just knew that the 1980 film had been moved improperly, and I could not fix it on my own. Thanks for all your help! Fortdj33 (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

See the last few entries in Special:Contributions/EdJohnston. I hope this takes care of it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

X-Men technnical move request

See the current hatnote on X-Men (comic book series). "This article is about the comic book series published by Marvel Comics since 2010. For the original series from 1963, see Uncanny X-Men. For the second series from 1991, see X-Men: Legacy."

It seems that whoever picked the name X-Men (comic book series) wanted to limit it to the period since 2010. Do you agree with this distinction? If the technical move is performed, what hatnote would you keep on the moved article (which would be at X-Men (comic book). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The hatnote at X-Men (comic book series) is fine the way it is now, as far as I am concerned. But the disambiguation does not need the word "series" in it, since there is currently no article at X-Men (comic book), plus WP:NCC states "The word 'series' when indicating publications can be vague and confusing, and thus should not be used." Fortdj33 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Film project tagging

Hi! I notice in this edit that the edit summary says "updating classification" but the Film Wikiproject tag is removed and this isn't reflected in the edit summary. Aren't actors in films also a part of the film wikiproject? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In a word, no. {{WikiProject Film}} already covers so many articles, that it was decided (not by me) to exclude actors, filmmakers and screenwriters, since they are already covered by the filmbio work group in {{WikiProject Biography}}. Sorry for the confusion, but since I did more than just remove the film project banner, by adding the biography parameter, I decided to just use a generic edit summary. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Piped links

First excuse me, I should have discussed first before reverting you're edit at List of Avengers members. However piping Spider-Man to Doctor Octopus violates WP:EGG. Readers would expect that Spider-Man be linked to Spider-Man.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, it's nothing personal, I just think that since all the other characters in the list are linked in the Character column, it looks out of place for Spider-Man to be formatted differently. Maybe the second Spider-Man entry should link to information about Superior Spider-Man, rather than linking to Otto Octavius' name. I'm just trying to keep things consistent. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That or another way around it could be Spider-Man (Doctor Octopus).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with linking Otto's name with Spider-Man in the Marvel NOW section, since other characters like Manifold, Venom and Quake contain piped links to articles with the character's name in the title. No one is trying to mislead the readers, when the character's real name is right there next to the link. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is purposefully trying to mislead readers, everyone is editing in good faith. But we can't except readers to read the entire table before clicking the link. On the side of caution, we should be as forthright as possible. I'd be okay with Spider-Man (Doctor Octopus) or The Superior Spider-Man.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, the list has piped links for three different versions of Ant Man, and two different versions each of Captain America, Captain Britain and Vision. None of those characters has the real name in parentheses as part of the link, so I don't see why are we making an exception for Spider-Man. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Spider-Man as Doctor Doom is the one that jumped out me but at least in the case of Ant-Man, there is no specific WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I really wasn't looking to turn this into a major issue, but if you wish you can solicited the opinions of the editors at WP:Comics. I'd be happy to go along with their consensus. BTW, I still think you are doing a good job with maintaining this article and others, you're a terrific editor.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm not trying to be difficult, but since you chose to discuss this on my talk page, instead of the talk page of the article, I felt the need to defend myself. I would also be happy to discuss this with other editors, so that we can come to a consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me again, I didn't mean for this to be taken as an attack. I started a discussion at Talk:List of Avengers members#Piped links to character articles and solicited opinions at WT:COMICS#RfC at List of Avengers members.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible split of Cartoon Network work group of WikiProject Animation

Greetings, a discussion of a possible split of the Cartoon Network work group of WikiProject Animation is underway. If you have questions or comments, please comment here. Thank you for your time. JJ98 (Talk) 07:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

About your recent move...

About that, maybe you have not checked this one... --Cavarrone (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, I didn't realize that there was more than one comics article with that title. Thanks for the clarification! Fortdj33 (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It happens (and it was easily fixed)! And however thanks for your great, precious work in articles-classification/assessment! My best, Cavarrone (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and I admire the amount of information that you have provided on Wikipedia, about Italian comics and films. I took the liberty of adding the appropriate stub tags and WikiProject banners to some of the articles that you have created. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive feedback, and your apport to the articles I have started is always really appreciated. My regards and keep up the good work! Cavarrone (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	Thank you. Collaborative editing is much easier with editors like you, who allow discussions to take their course rather than simply re-reverting.-- TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikify has been deprecated

Hi Fortdj33! Just dropping you a note to let you know that {{wikify}} has been deprecated in favor of more specific templates, such as {{underlinked}}. Since the release version of AWB is still automatically adding {{wikify}}, I suggest you install the latest SVN snapshot instead, which has a lot of fixes in it. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again! I see you're still adding {{wikify}} to articles with AWB, such as this edit. Please either install the latest SVN snapshot, disable auto tagging, or simply remove {{wikify}} before saving your edits. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That was a mistake; I have already installed the SVN update, in order to use {{underlinked}} instead, as evidenced by this edit. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Great - thank you! GoingBatty (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Summaries for characters with own articles

Hey, I noticed you removed the summaries for characters who have their own articles from the A page of the Marvel Comics character list. I understand the concern about article length, but I think those are kind of important in terms of providing context to the reader, and giving them a general idea of what the character is versus just a bare link. The page could always be split (to, say Aa-Am and An-Az) if it gets too long. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Template WikiProject Film

Hi Fortdj33, can you please explain when I should/can use the template of "WikiProject Film". As a matter of fact, I saw you removed it a few times just after I had placed them [2][3][4] Sincerely, MandinN (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I understand that when you added the {{WikiProject Film}} banner to those articles, it was done in good faith. But the film project already covers so many articles, that it was decided (not by me) to exclude actors, filmmakers and screenwriters. Those people are covered by adding the parameter |filmbio-work-group=yes to the {{WikiProject Biography}} banner instead. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for your answer. MandinN (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You learn something new every day...

Well, I certainly seem to. Thanks for this; I wasn't aware that WP:FILM didn't cover filmmakers themselves - now I know. Cheers. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(I see from the above message that I wasn't alone in my mistake; that makes me feel a little better!) Yunshui 雲‍水 14:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Most editors aren't aware of that fact, unless they are a member of WP:FILM. Thanks for the recognition! Fortdj33 (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Too many Stephen Rosses in France

I saw you saw my answer to your 1 or 2 Stéphane Roux? question, and then nicely tidied all all the loose ends and disambs (have a cookie). Unfortunately further searching on "Stéphane Roux... originaire de" failed to find any biometrics on either of them, even less than the physicist. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

re

"Please do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits, as they just clog up the edit history, and are not constructive or helpful to Wikipedia" - You mean just like you do with AWB on infoboxes within film articles? A clear breach of #4 of WP:AWB - "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see how such edits might be considered insignificant or inconsequential, if that's ALL I was using AWB for on a particular article. But I don't see any problem with cleaning up the spacing, when I am contributing to the article at the same time, by adding or updating the stub tags. Reverting the spacing without any regard for Wikipedia manner of style, is not constructive, and in some cases you have actually added spaces back to the text that simply do not need to be there. I'm sure that your edits are done in good faith, but I don't understand why you are wasting your time, when it doesn't contribute anything? Fortdj33 (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, please read the rules around the use of AWB. You are clearly in breach of them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And again, I understand the AWB rule against insignificant or inconsequential edits, but clearly I am doing more than just cleaning up spacing, when I use AWB to add or update stub stags. Why would AWB have an option to "fix all excess whitespace", if it wasn't intended to be used? With all due respect, that doesn't answer my question as to why you are taking the time to add inconsequential spacing back to articles, and removing the spacing before the stub tags, when Wikipedia prefers it otherwise. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well you continue to make your insignificant or inconsequential edits and to stalk mine. Your AWB abuse will be reported. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if you are taking this personally, but I am not stalking your edits. AWB is designed to follow the Wikipedia manner of style, and I simply questioned why you feel it's necessary for your POV to override that. Regardless, I will continue to use AWB to positively contribute to Wikipedia, and I have no desire to continue arguing with you about it on my talk page. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a photo in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Tempest (comics)

Why did you remove the Fictional Characters template? Feedback ^☎ 18:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Because the disambiguation page is for the general use of the word Tempest in comics. It contains more than just fictional characters. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

But why is that a problem? Disambiguation pages can fit into various different WikiProjects' scopes due to the multiple articles listed. That's the very nature of disambiguation. (i.e. Garth is under WikiProject Anthroponymy even though not all articles are human names). It's relevant to the fictional characters WikiProject, so do you still oppose if I re-add it? Feedback ^☎ 19:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Jinx pic

It's newer, not showing other characters, she's much more iconic in red (more than in black or white), and also quite iconic blindfolded (including the cartoon, Devil's Due, and now the film). It's hardly perfect, but it's better. A full silhuette version of it also exists, it was used for the package, but I couldn't get a good quality version of it. --Niemti (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

And you can always upload a better image. --Niemti (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand your criteria for changing it, but on my computer the original image is still showing up on the article, with the aspect ratio of the new image, which makes it look weird. I tried refreshing the image, both on the article and on the file page, but ended up reverting to the one with the correct aspect ratio. I will see about uploading a new image that replaces both of the existing ones. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It will rephresh if you restart the browser. --Niemti (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I don't think the image you uploaded is any more appropriate than the comic book image. As a compromise, I took the liberty of replacing it with one from the animated movie, which contains more of her classic look, and does not contain any other characters. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Btw, if you've seen the film already you might write about her role in it. --Niemti (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. And thanks for your understanding on the image issue. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

[5] - the red one[6] would be nice (it's concept arts for the film). --Niemti (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Or the promo pic that the IMDb uses: [7] --Niemti (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Hello, I'm Raghusri. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Sukumar's Untitled Project because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Because the film will not come under 2010 category, and is not released yet. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 14:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sortkey fix

Thank you! Spidey104 18:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Please note that I had to fix my edit on the sortkey, as using Spider-Man's name put it in the S's alphabetically in Category:Storylines in comics. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There's now a problem with the Phil Urich infobox image displaying properly after I moved the file. Could you take a look at that? Spidey104 03:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback (May 2013)

please can you revert, thanks Widefox; talk 17:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Quickly caught my eye - Tempest (comics) - I commented there too. Regards Widefox; talk 17:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Pardon?

Could I trouble you for an explanation of your revert here? Avengers (film series)—which is what I was looking for when I went to the page—redirects to Marvel Cinematic Universe, so I'd think it'd be a reasonable entry on the dab page. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see the inclusion of a link for Avengers (film series), but a disambiguation page for The Avengers should only contain links with "Avengers" in the title. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Three Rooms Press

I see you marked the article on Manic D Press as stub. I am a new wikipedia contributor and need help with article on Three Room Press now being considered for delete. [8] Please review Three Rooms Press, make constructive suggestions, and add your comment to the articles for delete talk page. Thank you. GetDaFacts (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Animation/Cartoon Network articles

Me and Paper Luigi (talk · contribs) thought that Cartoon Network's original programing is not animation nowadays, so I deiced to breakaway from the project after I asked the work group two years ago. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cartoon Network#Merger of this project into WikiProject Television as a task force. JJ98 (Talk) 16:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I completely understand the need to break Cartoon Network articles into a separate project. All I'm saying is that some of those articles should still fall under {{WikiProject Animation}}, because they are based on animated content. In those cases, please just remove the Cartoon Network parameters from the animation banner, and add the Cartoon Network banner, instead of removing the animation banner altogether. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Because there are some of the live action series like The Othersiders, Level Up and Incredible Crew aired on Cartoon Network which are not animated, except Out of Jimmy's Head. JJ98 (Talk) 17:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I understand that {{WikiProject Cartoon Network}} is more appropriate for those articles than {{WikiProject Animation}}. I'm talking about articles that are based on Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Ben 10, Dexter's Laboratory, etc. Just because an animated series was on Cartoon Network, doesn't mean it isn't still covered by the animation project. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes within navboxes

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 13. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Punisher titles

May I ask you why you reverted my edit in List of The Punisher titles? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Punisher_titles&diff=561824869&oldid=561769236

Do you have any legit sources stating that The Punisher: Purgatory is vol. 4?

Here are my sources:

Comicvine

The Punisher vol. 4 http://www.comicvine.com/the-punisher/4050-6586/

The Punisher: Purgatory http://www.comicvine.com/the-punisher-purgatory/4050-21768/

Marvel wikia

The Punisher vol. 4 http://marvel.wikia.com/Punisher_Vol_4

The Punisher: Purgatory http://marvel.wikia.com/Punisher_Purgatory_Vol_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisHH2013 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If you look at Talk:List of The Punisher titles, you'll see that there has already been more than one discussion on this topic. At one time, I actually shared your opinion that The Punisher: Purgatory did not belong in the Primary series section. However, I reverted your edits, because the current format was come to by a consensus, after a content dispute on this article. Feel free to take it to the talk page of the article, if you feel the issue should be examined again, but for now the 1998 series is considered Volume 4 on this list, because the indicia for that comic simply says "The Punisher". Fortdj33 (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)