Jump to content

User talk:Dp76764/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Complaints on the Civilization reversions

Firaxis editing their site is very unlikely, and will take some time anyway. I have just read the guidelines. Indeed, fansites are discouraged and I agree with this, but i wouldn't qualify mine as just a fansite, since it's the place where updated versions of the official maps and mods shipped with Civ4 (Earth Map, Earth Map Ice Age, 1000AD, Greek World) and Beyond the Sword (Rhye's and Fall of Civilization), and info in general about them, can be found. Indeed, the best place to link them would be in the text itself, rather than in the External Links. And by the way, I've just noticed that civ4 scenarios aren't mentioned in the Civilization IV page. There were a few more scenarios provided, not only mine. I might add them all, then.
Instead, in Beyond the Sword page they are listed and briefly described, and "Fall from Heaven", which is another mod made by an external user and later become official, has its own link, pointing to its site http://www.civfanatics.com/ffh.
What's more, it even has a dedicated paragraph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_sword#Modding) which, being entitled "Modding", is misleading. It should be merged with the paragraph of the scenarios, and I should be allowed to add a few lines about mine as well, because in case I, too, have reviews to quote: http://rhye.civfanatics.net/pages/civ4_RFCpresscoverage.php

79.53.199.47 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Are your 'updated maps' OFFICIAL or unofficial? Also, if you're affiliated with the Rhye's site, you should be careful about adding 'self-promotional' material, FYI. I'm not 100% sure why the modding stuff is left out, but it may have to do with the 'Manual of Style' for video game articles. Also something to be aware of is WP:GAMEGUIDE (ie: don't get too specific about things in games). There isn't a terrible amount of consistency here on these articles in regards to how they follow the rules for articles, which is why you see discrepancies between the articles, I think. But hey, if you're confident that your material can exist happily with the rules, then by all means, be bold and add it back in. =) And thanks again for discussing this instead of edit warring =) DP76764 (Talk) 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


I am Rhye, the author. I've just registered with the name "Rhye20".
The updates of my works are necessary in order to be aligned to the game version. In other words, game companies provide patches to fix bugs and adjust various aspects. I do the same to the mods, and I'm forced to do that, in order to maintain compatibily with the game every time a new patch comes out. So, as for the official scenarios, their updates have to be considered official as well. I think that scenarios were missing in Civ4 article because they were secondary compared to the huge amount of content introduced, unlike in the expansions. However, I can add a few lines both to the english page and to the italian one (I'm not a native english speaker, that's why I never bothered registering). What's left is to decide what to do with paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_sword#Modding. It doesn't speak about modding: it just adds details of Fall From Heaven. I propose to merge the content in the Fall From Heaven paragraph and delete it, what do you think?.
Rhye20 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


My apologies for the intrusion on your page - I'm not familiar with wiki and I'm not sure how to communicate with you. However, why did you revert my changes on Civilization IV and Beyond the Sword pages? rhye.civfanatics.net is a site that contains official mods and has absolute rights to be linked where I had edited. 79.43.198.237 (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Here are some subsequent, relevant discussions elsewhere on the subject of Rhye's site and edits:
Rhye20 should not be adding links to his site or editing any articles having to do with his site, however he may make suggestions on the article's talk pages as long as he does not appear to be canvassing for his stuff's inclusion. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello I was the author who addedA remix version of "Labrea, Circle of Equals (Trial of Grievance)" from the soundtrack of the PC game Mechwarrior 2 by Gregory Alper & Jeehun Hwang. (specifically from Ghost Bears Legacy) and I am not sure why you deleted it. (It's also called "Arkam Bridge") Here's proof that this statement is true:

Hoover Dam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euR1h7H3e1I

Arkam Bridge http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ0LAs9KiXc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kain6th (talk • contribs) 04:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Adult Swim task force

You seem to be interested in Adult Swim, and I would appreciate if you would collaborate on it at the task force, found here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead - rabies

I edited in a compromise on the rabies issue for L4D, but forgot to add a proper edit description. Please see the L4D talk page for my reasoning. Didn't want to make it seem like I was prompting an edit war. -LogisticEarth (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Michigan radio stations

Most radio station templates have the "broadcast area" section used to designate which area the radio station targets.--milk the cows (Talk) 20:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm cool with it. I work in the radio industry (radio jobs are getting kinda scarce, so I should be thankful). :)

Prod and AfD

WP:PROD and WP:AFD explain the basics. In summary, there are three types of deletion:

  • Speedy deletion - WP:CSD (copyright violations, nonsense, vandalism, notability not asserted etc)
  • prod, which is used for deletion when you think it's an uncontroversial deletion. Anyone can object (including the original author) by removing the tag, and no reason need be given. If this happens, it becomes a "contested prod" and prod can't be used again (since it is now by definition a controversial deletion). If nobody disagrees by removing the tag, then the article will be deleted after 5 days.
  • AfD, where there is discussion of the merits or otherwise of deleting the article. It lasts usually for 5 days, unless the outcome is blindingly obvious and the discussion is closed early.

Hope this helps. I tend not to do much at AfD, but occasionally try to clean out the backlog of speedy deletion and prod nominations. Regards, BencherliteTalk 22:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies

I'm sorry if I came off in any way pushy at Talk:Rihanna#2009 Grammy's, which wasn't my intention. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 00:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this idiot managed to have his own article on Wikipedia in the first place still boggles my mind. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 01:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Star Wars invitation

I have noticed that you are listed as a member of the Star Wars WikiProject, which has been defunct for a long time. I would like to inform you that I am attempting to revitalize it. As such, I would officially like to invite you to participate in the project once again. If you are interested, please sign your name at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Star Wars#February 2009 Roll Call. Hope to see you soon! Firestorm Talk 23:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Michigan source

Thanks. That MSU link looks very solid to me: 3rd party, published, reliable, etc. However, the article's phrasing would have to be changed, since this reference only supports the claim of "the longest freshwater shoreline in the continental United States" (emphasis added), not the whole world. It's admittedly a lesser claim, although the rest of the sentence could be included to add weight: "and rivals the entire U.S. Atlantic seaboard". Kevin Forsyth (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Sounds good... I'll discuss further over there, for a wider audience. Regards, Kevin Forsyth (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

re: SimCity Articles

Ok Ill stop.

Is it acceptable for me to post them on the talk page? Kotosb (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

family guy list

there doesn't need to be consensus when it has clearly been demonstrated that it passes the criteria as a source. Its not as if its about formatting, but the problem was if it valid information, and that is what was proven. Its legit, and all in good faith. The sources in question have been used before and are 100% accurate Grande13 (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I wont revert it anymore for now, but the source is legit and has proven to be legit and reliable source while meeting wikipedias criteria Grande13 (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

what are you questioning about the material? i've provided links to the old history pages of the episode list with the source being used and its been completely accurate. It also has met all the criteria like I mentioned as it doesn't violate any of wikipedias policies. I have a good track record and have been a main contributor and regulator of the page and I wouldn't use a source or insert information that wasn't 100 percent confirmed. I think the info on the blog is also proof in itself that it is who it claims to be as noone else has this info before it was posted there. Also when other information there was posted almost two years ago the same situation applied as the news it gave was found no where else. There is no other explanation of how someone could have come across that information unless they were tied into the show, such as the director Grande13 (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

its not like im just talking and going with a story here. All of the past info that source has provided to this site can be seen in the history to prove it, and you know i'm right about it being reliable Grande13 (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
the source has a neutral point of view and offers Verifiability with its past history . It passes the criteria needed along with other ones not listed here, you know its a gray area and this one falls on the side of it being legit. Maybe thats now how it works, but it still is correct and verifiable. Its not OR, it was a self published source, and according the those standards and criteria it meets all objectives in determining if the informatiton from that can be used as long as its neutral, doesn't effect the integrity of the article, and so on Grande13 (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fox no longer has a page thats updated with any sort of episode guide resembalance, hence they moved to freakinsweetnews, they just must not have updated that part on the site, cause it used to be fan run in the beginning. And the Copyright Database is unreliable as to when information gets uploaded there as sometimes its up years in advance while other times not at all or until after it airs. A lot of people come here, and I know its not the spot for breaking news, but its also now appearing elsewhere and people should see the legit info and correct titles as if not there will be tons of vandalism here like usual as people always are adding fake things. With the truth out there it helps spread the correct information on the web and wikipedia can be seen as a reliable source for family guy and other things, as right now everyone reads things on wikipedia with skepticism as it is knowing its not true. You know there is a way for this source to slide as its not earth shattering news that has a huge effect on people. Grande13 (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Then let me source the blog again. I know you believe its not something anyone can make up, and the fact that its been used in the past I feel you must think its legit as well. There are loopholes where blogs and such can be used on wikipedia, so wouldn't it just be easier to use one of those to allow the site to reflect as much accurate information as possible, and once a more pronounced site offers the info then I can change the source, but until then I can use the blog? Grande13 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

your link takes me here WP:BLP#Reliable sources., then from there I go to Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:


so by this " Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if: 

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published."

i can include anything that he directed himself Grande13 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

that sliders episodes changed names since the director with the blog was the one who directed that episode. Shouldnt we fix that somehow. there was even a post a few weeks ago on the blog about how that episodes name change came to be??? Grande13 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

well we need to change that sliders episode title somehow cause its pointless having the wrong title up here as its just going to add to confusion. How about you correct that one and you can leave off 7acx15 for now until its in the database Grande13 (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


i would think the director of the episode saying "For the Sliders episodes I suggested this be renamed "Road to the Multiverse", and Seth dug it. Road to '85 got a big rewrite after animatic, and didn't feel like a "Road" show at all ....meanwhile, Sliders is a total Brian & Stewie adventure, w/ a song ....so - to me it made more sense for this ep to be the Road show. Beleive me, it has NOTHING to do w/ me wanting to hog all the "Road" shows now. :)" on the blog would be more of an authoritative source then copyright database who have had that file in there for months already. It should be changed to "road to multiverse. As you saw i fixed up the directors page so that should be sufficient enough for the title change for now, and we can rely on the copyright database for future titles. So lets change that one away from sliders since its incorrect. [[1]]Grande13 (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Its only reliable with the initial title, over time with more and more changes to script it becomes less reliable. We might as well use freakinsweetnews as at least its not a blog and gives us a chance to post the right info as opposed to posting something we know is outdated, and the copyright database doesn't ever update old records, so its never going to change there. Why post something that you know is wrong? There is updated info available so the misleading needs to end. We might as well just change the title and keep the copyright database link then cause it can't stay how it is Grande13 (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well i can verify past situation on the Copyright Datbase where the title there was not the final title after the episode had gone through revisions. It needs to be changed Grande13 (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Feet of Clay 'improve' tag

Hi, you added a 'refimprove' tag to Feet of Clay some weeks ago. Could you explain why you did so? The article does contain little more than an introduction, a summary (which I wrote) and the titles of the book's translations into other languages. Which of these would need to be verified? 92.224.161.124 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tag and explained the rationale behind that in FoC's discussion page. 91.39.164.166 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

FG

Since you're an active member of FG articles, I'm thinking about merging Mort Goldman and Neil Goldman (along with anything on Muriel) to either a new article - Goldman Family, or even just redirecting them to List_of_characters_from_Family_Guy#The_Goldmans, as their articles alone are not really notable. Thoughts? CTJF83Talk 04:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you use IRC chat? I kinda feel like doing a little editing tonight, and might as well clean up some FG articles. CTJF83Talk 04:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Well you should IRC sometime! It makes editing and decision making a lot easier! Have a good night. CTJF83Talk 05:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion would be appreciated here CTJF83Talk 01:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Like to add an new external link to Massive Attack page

Hi, you removed a link to my Massive Attack fansite from the page for Massive Attack a few months ago. You said my fansite link would need to be "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." What 'unique resources' does your site provide that are not already provided by other sources?" I made a list of what my site provides in unique resources beyond the Wikipedia article but never received any reply back. Could you please review this now. Its at the bottom of the TalkPage. Cheers! Nametaken12 (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just after replying to your comment on my Talk Page. Could you please review it and get back to me with your answer. Thanks! Nametaken12 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:PERNOM discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

I've proposed WP:PERNOM be codified into AfD's at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#deleting invalid votes from afd's. I don't know if you would have any interest in participating in that discussion or not but I figured I would let you know about it all the same Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim Cramer

Sorry, I got a little carried away due to the user adding in a tribute blog entry by a random Blogspot user. 69.251.135.219 (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim Cramer & Mad Money "Criticism" sections

Thanks for finally putting a stop to 69.251.135.219 (talk); however, I have a concern over the a misuse of the two mentioned Wikipedia articles, Mad Money and Jim Cramer. Both articles have severe vandalism problems, more specifically the "Criticism" sections that are normally frowned upon in Wikipedia. Considering that, biographies of living persons have much more strict rules for the information that can be added to them, especially from external sources such as the ones in "Criticism." I believe the criticism sections should be deleted, THEN discussed in their respective discussion pages until the issue is solved. This sort of vandalism is not tolerated in Wikipedia and therefor, it seems the removal of the criticism section immediately is not only necessary, but will preserve the rules for editing biographies of living persons. Can you help me with this? Thank you. Tycoon24 (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Reply

Do I have your permission then to re-add the deleted Praise, but also start a discussion on it? Or, probably better due to my recent 'edit war,' if you re-added it and I can start the discussion sections? Please let me know if I'm wrong, too. It also seems like both "Criticism" and "Praise" (if ultimately allowed in the article by discussion) should also fall under the same category for "External Reviews," am I correct? Thank you so much for the help. I've really been trying to balance the Mad Money and Jim Cramer Wikipedia articles out as much I can, mainly because I know there's been some pretty bad vandalism within them for over a year now. It's like fighting an uphill battle just to create neutrality for both biographies. At any rate, let me know if this works. Thanks! Tycoon24 (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I'll go over the biographies and put together a discussion on their Talk Pages. One more thing, after I post the discussion and wait a couple of days, what if there are no negative or positive voiced opinions? Should I consider that positive since I would have been the only 'voiced opinion' (thus, consensus)? Thank you very much for clearing this up for me, you've been the most helpful person I've talked to on Wikipedia. All is appreciated! Tycoon24 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Your Reply

{{help me}} What other ways can you message users and those who edit documents or even remove material to clear things up? Do you have anymore suggestions, I didnt not see it in the info provided? Also, is it possible to reply on a talk page? Kcgs1989 (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please don't use the helpme template on someone else's talk page - they'll notice you've commented here and will reply when they log in. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
See response in User_talk:Kcgs1989#Contacting users --  Chzz  ►  04:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quagmire

Care to point the WP:OR, of which you were accusing me? As far as the latest episode goes, the plot consists of the guys asking him if his birth year is 1948 (and subsequently, if his age is 61) and him saying yes. Nowhere is it contradicted. Therefore, calling it an "off joke" is WP:OR as it is the character's real age according to the series. If you can prove me wrong, please do. As for "trivia/fancruft," age is a vital factor - we're not dealing with minor details like which color grass grows in his back yard... 87.69.177.35 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You need one of these.

You need a duck

I see symptoms of excessive frustration. Perhaps you could use an officially approved break from editing? A long, contemplative duck break is just the thing for too much time spent in tedious WikeFreakingPedia discussions. There's a world out there! With ducks in it! It's way better than this! Well recommended! / edg ☺ ☭ 17:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: 4/1!

You're very welcome... a little humor always makes the wiki run smoother! JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Cool

Great job! They look really good! Now hopefully people will read them! CTJF83Talk 18:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need anything on Stan Thompson in Meg's article? CTJF83Talk 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
LOL, so you wanna leave it in? as a one time joke? CTJF83Talk 19:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
HAHA, that's why I like ya! CTJF83Talk 19:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you good with infoboxes? CTJF83Talk 01:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It's by no means an important or even really a necessary edit, but on Template:Family Guy character if there is a way to make sure quotation marks automatically come up in the "first appearance" section. CTJF83Talk 01:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
No, lol, so maybe it isn't even possible. CTJF83Talk 01:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
LMFAO!!! I think I got it [2] CTJF83Talk 01:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction and your use of my monobook script

Hi Dp76764,

I have to let you know on your talk page that ArbCom has announced a temporary injunction against the "mass delinking of dates". You can still delink dates on an occasional basis; however, you may wish to be cautious and use the script only for its non-date functions until the issue is resolved by an RFC poll. You may wish to express your view on autoformatting and date linking in the RFC at: Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I undid this: [3]. You should be very careful removing content from discussion pages. There are a lot less reasons to do it, and in this case it actually replied to the previous post, on the discussion of the validity of the article on Wikipedia. imho, the whole discussion is moot but that doesn't mean we shouldn't let these guys chat away. FSM bless you. --Carbon Rodney 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject View Askew Invite

Hello,

I noticed that you edited a Kevin Smith or View Askew Productions related article. Wikipedia currently has a View Askew WikiProject which aims to improve all Kevin Smith and View Askew related articles. You are free to join or can explore what the project is about by clicking here. Here are some other good links to help you get started with Wikipedia:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  

WikiGuy86 (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Quagmire

The talk page eventually (after a long and weary discussion) seems to be OK with the birth year, as long as it makes sense in context with the character's anachronism. This is a 100% real world perspective and as such, constitutes a valid addition. Drone2Gather (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

FG Airdates

Can you comment here about listing two original air dates. Thank you, CTJF83Talk 22:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


Operation Iraqi Stephen

You stated taking the following out for it being in a blog... "Stephen Colbert arrived in Baghdad Iraq June 5th 2009 in support of Operation Iraqi Stephen. With the help of the USO, he filmed several episodes of the Colbert report at Al Faw Palace. The palace is the headquarters for the Multi National Corps-Iraq MNC-I within Camp Victory. Stephen was welcomed by a small throng of US Soldiers awaiting him in front of the archway of Al Faw Palace in the dead heat of the afternoon. Upon his arrival, Colbert stated "This place is hotter than the Devil's balls" and suggested that it be put on a t-shirt with the potential to increase tourism to the country. "

I wrote that. I am a US Soldier assigned to MNC-I who works within Al Faw Palace, where Mr. Colbert filmed those shows. If anyone put that in a blog, it was taken from me and they are not the author. User Talk:Pianoisland

I checked that link, and saw that it was verbatim. Like I said; I really hope you don't question my integrity regarding the matter. So even if what I put is true, and was not biased in any way, and added to the article... It still cannot be put on wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

BF 1943

Hello there. Sorry for adding twitter as a source - I assumed official twitter accounts fall under the same guidelines that allow for official forums to be referenced when a dev (or whoever) contributes. My bad! Thanks! Fin©™ 15:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy

Can you provide input for this, please? CTJF83Talk 23:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Input here too, please CTJF83Talk 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain yourself why you have removed the refernce to 99 Luftballons from Road to Germany? I don't see your point removing this line, besides, this has been several times mentioned. regards: norbert79 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norbert79 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, is this something user:Pedro thy master did? Ya, I'm strongly against copying anything from family guy wiki, I think that site is a total train wreck mess, and would never get any information from it. CTJF83Talk 20:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've reverted several of his edits. Ugh! Just what we need. CTJF83Talk 21:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there really anything we can do about User:Pedro thy master? I'm really tired of reverting most if not all of his edits. CTJF83Talk 05:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a pretty good idea, and I think the best I can hope for. Since we can't just block him or tell him to stop editing FG articles. CTJF83Talk 17:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Lineage_II

What's wrong with my edit in Lineage II article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.12.49.88 (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

ok thanks

can you read the theif of time withour reading the other novels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.66.77 (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:reply

ok thanks I've only read the truth which was described as standalone so I was just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.66.77 (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy

Dp76764, are you good at editing fG. --Pedro J. the rookie 01:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

i have been working on family guy with a buddy of mine(you may know him Bovineboy2008, mostly he has cleaned up and i have deleted spaces with no good refrences.) and if you could check it out, and tell me on what it could be expanded or cleaned, could you tell me, thanks.--Pedro J. the rookie 04:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

can you check family guy and tell me how to improve it. --Pedro J. the rookie 20:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please comment here Thank you! CTJF83Talk 06:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandal.

I know you're not an admin. I have reverted, you have reverted, I have reported, you have spoken on talk. Can you think of anything else to do about 207.181.228.210? --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Also, I'd just like you to know that in response to my reporting of them, they've "counter-reported" us. Just thought you'd like to know. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks for your help. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, why thank you. I'm just glad I wasn't "fighting" a losing battle on the issue. I personally believe that entire section is just horrible, and most of it already has its own, better, page. But hey, if I can ever help in the future, just let me know. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay

You've reverted my edit as vandalism - but Steve Allen *is* the Head Chef at Claridges? Thedarxide (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Source - http://www.gordonramsay.com/claridges/chefs/headchef/ I appreciate that it's primary, but I think in this instance it's trustworthy Thedarxide (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I've never heard of him! I looked him up myself because I wasn't sure of the validity of the edit. Very brief search gives some corroboration and gossip pieces - http://www.craftguildofchefs.org/news-item/simon-hulstone-wins-national-chef-of-the-year/4764, http://www.hardens.com/restaurant-news/uk-london/20-05-09/gordon-ramsay-chef-change-claridges-mark-sargeant/.


List of Family Guy episodes

In this section, do you think OR about when the episodes will air is ok? Grande13 feels the need to add episode titles with out official Fox press releases, based on the OR of Adult Swim airing one week after Fox. Please comment here. CTJF83 chat 17:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

They are on the OFFICIAL schedule from adultswim. Fox has exclusive rights for 1 week before they can air on adult swim, this isnt anything new here Grande13 (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy reversions

Thanks for reverting so many of the crufty addtions to various Family Guy articles. One suggestion: reversions without explanatory edit summaries are not helpful to new editors, for which FG articles are a common first edit. For example, this edit could point to WP:No original research.

A common complaint about Wikipedia is that new potential editors are driven off when they find their edits reverted immediately. While there is plenty of reason for such reversions, giving those editors half a chance is a good thing. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Brian's Got a Brand New Bag‎

I don't have cable or dish, so I can't confirm if the episode has aired on Adult Swim or not. Are you able to confirm or deny its airing? CTJF83 chat 17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Adultswim changed their schedule at the last moment although some of the tvguide pages, such as comcast werent able to put the change in time. It was updated a few days ago on adultswim schedule that brians new bag would not be airing since it didnt air on fox and that a repeat would be in its place. I recorded it just to make sure and it was indeed a repeatGrande13 (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Grande, a new user changed the air date, and I had reverted it anyways. ok. CTJF83 chat 18:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Alt descriptions

I notice you are removing alt text from the Lois Griffin article. Alt descriptions are actually necessary for the blind and visually impaired. While I am not seeing them widely implemented on Wikipedia, this is a Good Idea, and should probably be allowed. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I only removed 1 alt description, on 1 occasion. After seeing the reason it was added, I fully support the use of alt descriptions. DP76764 (Talk) 22:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Good to hear. I misremembered then. Thanks for getting back to me on this.  :) / edg ☺ ☭ 00:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy merge proposal

Hi, I proposed merging Seth & Alex's Almost Live Comedy Show with Family Guy 3 weeks ago, and haven't had much feedback, so I'm requesting your opinion (along with other major project members) on whether the page should be merged or not. Thank you, CTJF83 chat 09:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy

i am planinng to put FG for FAc but first i'm on an FLC can you review the FLC of FG season 5, thanks--Pedro J. the rookie 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


bf1942 Editing

Hey whats with the bf1942 editing ? Funny thing it happened after the request of a bunch of babies who dont want to see some stuff online . I noticed another user made some edtions the text is correct, the ranking systems are an important part of bf1942 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admiral Hunter (talk • contribs) 23:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Asheron's Call

If you wish, please comment. --Tlosk (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Greg Colton

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Greg Colton. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Colton. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Ghostbusters

what edits did i make to ghostbusters? i never even edit...--66.136.98.118 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Detroit Red Wings

So you are aware, I have reverted your reversion of recent edits on the Detroit Red wings article. The edits in question appear to have been correcting edits made against consensus on the talk page. Sepcifically, the talk page discussed recentism, and a person removed historical information. Additionally, the edits appear proper. Hotdoggin1 (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

MythBusters

- commonly attributed to James Whitcomb Riley --Kaini (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah, i was grumpy last night :) no worries. --Kaini (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Family Guy

I was in the process of adding a reference for the Sarah Palin information I had just added to the article when you put a "citation needed" tag in the article and made me mess up my next edit. You did that literally three minutes after I edited the article. That is ridiculously overzealous on your part and I do not appreciate it.-Schnurrbart (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Conan O'Brien - Twitter

Re: WP:ELOFFICIAL. When you removed the link to O'Brien's official twitter feed, you claimed it was because WP:EL. There's a qualification to the restriction on external links to Twitter, Facebook, etc... The top of WP:ELNO says, "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject". Since this is O'Brien's official twitter page, this link is appropriate. Again, see WP:ELOFFICIAL, where it says: "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." Jwesley78 17:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Ckatz didn't like references on the links.  :-\ Jwesley78 19:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Random curiosity....

...as to why you are a Bears fan and not a Lions? CTJF83 chat 19:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol, good question! I actually inherited the Bears fandom from a parent; the other sports I picked up myself living in Detroit. Plus, c'mon, let's be honest; who in their right mind would ever choose to be a Lions fan? I know a hopeless situation when I see one! DP76764 (Talk) 19:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
LOL, probably just Tim Taylor, if I watched sports, I'd be a Bears fan too, being I'm close to Chicago. CTJF83 chat 20:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For you work on Empire Strikes Back and bringing it too FA Status Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Belron US logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Belron US logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Savage

I don't see a reliable DOB cited and it is disputed by the subject, imo we should remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, when such claims are disputed the best is to improve the support and that usually puts an end to it, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Civ 5 city states

These lists need to be there. A city - state list is no more a gameguide than a civ list. OttomanJackson User:OttomanJackson 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs)

About IP 141.52.232.84 aka 95.114.50.43

I do not know about you, but I believe there is no way to make progress with this user from Germany. By his or her continuing actions, I do not believe the user is here to help improve the article but to make sure that fan patch gets included into the article one way or another. I have said my last words in that thread[4] and will no longer respond to him or her unless they present material that complies with the advice given. Jappalang (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

BS

The Original Barnstar
Too often great editors like you are overlooked and not given the credit deserved for all their great contributions. So I am awarding you this barnstar to let you know I greatly appreciate all you do for Wikipedia, and please keep up the outstanding work!! CTJF83 chat 03:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Futurama

I notice you reverted my revision. I was actually adding back 187.112.32.99's edit that ClueBot had reverted. However, this original edit was definitely not vandalism. It was unsourced, but so are a lot of statements in the article, and anyway it is an accurate quote from the show which could easily be misinterpreted as vandalism. I have reported this as a false positive to ClueBot here. –CWenger (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I called it vandalism. The material was fairly poorly written and seemed trivial, thus the removal. I'll clean it up now if we insist on keeping it. DP76764 (Talk) 16:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought rollback was only supposed to be used for vandalism? –CWenger (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I can 'rollback' stuff. I use the Popups tool's revert option for quick undo's. Definitely should have done it manually (and added a note) in this case, so my bad on that. DP76764 (Talk) 20:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I just saw that your edit summary started with 'Revert' and mistakenly thought that meant you had used rollback. –CWenger (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
NP! Not even sure exactly what rollbackers do and how to be assigned those rights ;) DP76764 (Talk) 21:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Rollback is basically just a quick way to revert obvious vandalism that doesn't need to be explained in an edit summary. It also reverts all consecutive changes by the same editor. You should definitely apply for this permission! –CWenger (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback and reviewer granted

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've also given you reviewer rights; see WP:REVIEWER and Help:Pending changes for more information. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Weigh in

Can you weigh in on this? CTJF83 chat 12:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Late...

But the whole "did EA kill the servers" question here was quite relevant, and not "Q/A". If the game is no longer supported, the article ought to say so, and the EA forums don't exactly have the most active support from EA mods/devs. YuriKaslov (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares

Thanks for the revert on RKN. The editor is an IP hopper who seems determined to edit war; I have a vague suspicion it's an old problem editor back again, but don't have enough to act on it yet. I've contacted the admin who protected the US article, but he appears to be away for a few days. This most likely won't end without a semi-protect. Drmargi (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum -- after reading a few posts and a bit of the archive, I'm becoming suspicious this may be Roman888. He's had a sizable sock farm in his day, and the arguments are becoming increasingly familiar. Drmargi (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
hehe, let the games begin!! :) DP76764 (Talk) 23:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL! No kidding. The editor who initiated the original sockpuppetry case against him (and it's a doozie) and I are collaborating on a bit of evidence gathering to see if we have a sock or not. She's seen recent new activity comparable to his old activity on a series of articles related to Maylasia, so here's hoping we can sort this one out with a minimum of agro. A girl can dream, anyway. Drmargi (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Aaaand, we're on to a new IP. Goody. Do you know anything about how dynamic IP's work? Drmargi (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Only from a general technology perspective. Pretty much anyone should be able to change/refresh their IP, given the right knowhow. There's probably stuff out there that helps facilitate people who are really into that. Not sure how that plays with WP here but I think some of the administrative types have access to tools to discover it. DP76764 (Talk) 05:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Geolocate ties it down a bit, but that's the limit of my know-how. Another editor, who's followed Roman's many copyvios, has opened a siteban case at WP:AN because he's back and block evading, which will hopefully settle his hash once and for all. This is about the time of day he becomes active again. Let's see how the night goes. Drmargi (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion.

Would you please give your opinion on the FA Topic Drive in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Family Guy. Pedro J. the rookie 23:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Herbert (Family Guy). Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is an exemption to 3RR, which I'm fairly certain is what this was. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. The material repeatedly added isn't exactly blatant vandalism, but since it's the only material added by the other user, despite warnings on their talk page, I contend that it's vandalism. What else does one call a campaign to insert unsourced nonsense into an article? DP76764 (Talk) 23:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

South Park revision

Hi. I made a change to South Park#Political and corrected what seemed to be mix-up of words. I also made a comment on the talk page a month in advance. You undid the revision stating that the original wording "seems" to be correct. Since you didn't elaborate or comment on the talk page I can't say I'm convinced that you are right. Could you please respond to my comment? Ddnixx (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Philip J. Fry

Since you commented on my recent request to rename Professor Farnsworth, I'm notifying you about the rename of Fry, feel free to comment: Talk:Philip_J._Fry#Rename. CTJF83 06:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

StarWars Changes

It was not my intention to attack him. I was responding to his dismissal of me as a 'created user' solely existing as a 'new voice' to support against his viewpoint. Jcforge (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Diablo II

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Diablo II: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you for helping to protect articles from vandals. -- Fyrefly (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed (see the top of this talk space). I tend to use them less frequently for 1-off, drive-by vandals though; people who edit once, enjoy the laugh they get out of it and then leave. Persistent vandals, on the other hand, get warnings. DP76764 (Talk) 18:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Beatles infobox

There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Violating TOU

You are violating TOU of Wikipedia. Please read them in future, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.24.130 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL, that's hilarious. DP76764 (Talk) 16:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait for the administration to find out that you are misusing your right to edit and violating Terms of Use. Fulfill your ego elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnon s (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Naturalistic pantheism

I noticed you recently made an edit at page Naturalistic pantheism which I have nominated for deletion. Please share your thoughts about it if you have any. Thanks (Allisgod (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC))

Superbad

Thank you for clarifying why my section entitled 'Sequel' was deleted from Wikipedia. I know why it was deleted by you and another reason and I now know not to mistake that mistake in the future. Thegrillman (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Diablo III dispute resolution

Hey dp,

The Diablo III amazon/metacritic issue was posted to DRN, giving you have a headsup: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Diablo_III. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Last Ounce of Courage Edits

I'm glad we're starting to work out the issues in the Last Ounce article. I have no interest in an edit war with you, or anyone else. However, I have had strong frustrations with Wikipedia, in terms of editing, which is why I have no editing account. Already in this dispute, we have two Admins come in threatening blocks...over what? One of those same Admins accused me of making "unhelpful/disruptive" edits...according to whom? Blocking is supposed to be the LAST resort, not the first. This makes me want to tear my hair out.

I have certainly had this sort of thing happen before. I don't mind being edited so much, but being reverted, is frankly not a joke. It's why Wikipedia has lost thousands of volunteer editors over the past two years. Too much wikilawyering and ownership.

In my experience, this is how editing Wikipedia goes. 1. You make the edit. 2. Someone reverts it in five minutes. 3. You revert it back. 4. They call it Vandalism and revert it without a word of explanation. 5. You point out that you have added relevant information and put it back in. 6. They call it NPOV, again with no explanation, and take it out. 7. You point out you added balance and put it back in. 8. They accuse you of OR, and take it out, then block you for 3RR. The whole thing feels like a waste of time.

I once tried editing the birthdate of an artist, which was incorrect on Wikipeda, but was correctly cited on the website of the artist AND his best friend. That was called OR. Well, good God, if reading things and adding them is OR, what isn't?

I once added that a famous writer was in a music video, that was labelled Vandalism, then OR, then I got 3RR'd. Guess who told me they were in the video? The writer HIMSELF. AND...he's visibly IN the video! How else would you know??

Once gave it a shot when a wiki article accused a politician of push-polling. I put in that the paper reporting that was owned by the opposing politician's wife! I confirmed it through the state voter checklist...more OR and blocking. I didn't even remove the accusation.

Another time, the wiki bio of a famous actress listed her death location incorrectly. I know this, because...I have her death certificate. Again, vandalism, followed by OR, followed by blocking.

It's amazing anyone not already granted Admin access bothers anymore. 66.87.4.30 (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I understand your frustration; there are some fundamental guidelines of this site that are not plainly intuitive. If it is of any encouragement, I personally found that once I'd wrapped my mind around them that editing became a lot more successful. For me, the biggest mind-bender was WP:V "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". When you think about that, it really is a challenge to suspend a desire to add "the truth" or "reality". This might be where you're encountering some of your hurdles; sadly, being told directly from the subject of an article, while likely true, isn't verifiable for anyone else. That's why there is so much emphasis on reliable sources, etc.
I'm gonna offer some personal perspective/advice now; hopefully this comes out as constrictive and you don't take any offense (for none is intended).
Frankly, you come off as a tad stubborn in your edits; some comments have felt like "compromise means the other person adopting my views". I've rarely seen anyone have much success when they appear unwilling to compromise on anything. In your example above, I think you're going wrong after step 2; if you took a different path at step 3, you'd probably wind up with a different result. I'm sure you've seen this before, but WP:BRD is worth a read. You've been bold, you've been reverted, you should discuss it next rather that re-revert. Stubborn behavior will also predispose other editors/admins to lean on the ban-button faster than other situations.
I think you might have more success if you dial down the stubbornness and take another whack at trying to see the guidelines in the way most other editors do. Not that I'm encouraging sheep-ness (there is room for some interpretation) but this seems to be another problem point.
Regards, DP76764 (Talk) 04:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
See thats kind of the problem...banning is not supposed to be a punishment, to be invoked as an ego trip. Its supposed to be to prevent vandalism. You might have missed in that example about the writer, I linked to the video itself AS the source. I know how to verify. Somebody, either you or Ckatz, at first reverted my edit in the opener, where it said that the Revere character was fighting "the separation of church and state". My entire edit, every word, got reverted. That's where the stubborn starts.
Go read the talk page. One editor/admin said I should have been banned for REVERTING once. Everyone on Wikipedia is supposed to be able to edit, not just the enlightened masters. My point in the example was that I've had editors say.."sorry, that's vandalism..oh, its not, well, than it must be POV...oh, wait, its adding a different point of view? OH, then it must be original research...you're banned, thanks for coming" Any excuse. 66.87.7.227 (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of what other peoples behavior is, that doesn't mean you should stoop to a lower level and edit war. There's a simple way to not get banned for 3RR, for example: DON'T DO IT. Regardless of how "right" you are. And you just gotta let go of the hurt feelings at being reverted; get over it, it happens all the time.
If I was at a site and continually met with resistance and frustration, I'd start asking myself what *I* was doing wrong, instead of trying to blame the system and everyone else on the site. DP76764 (Talk) 14:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
No, thanks. I blame the other people I'm dealing with. I know what words mean, I know what rules are. If you're not getting what I'm saying, you're missing my point. The Admins I've had issues with don't discuss, they don't debate or argue on the merits of their position, they make things up and pull out the banhammer. I feel no remorse or guilt for that whatsoever. I am not edit-warring and I don't appriciate that characterization. Assume good faith. I am making factual corrections to an article based on verifiability.
I do this sort of thing for a living, actually, and it isn't just Wikipedians that pull the stunt of simply dismissing and denying factual information and failing to observe rules of good conduct, so no, I don't ask myself what I'm doing wrong much, because I think it out before I do it. 66.87.4.197 (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Your points aren't "missed", they're just usually wrong. And assuming good faith only goes so far; once someone has established a pattern of poor/contentious behavior, that good faith pool dries up mighty fast. You also can't keep claiming it for your benefit while at the same time you make accusations of bad faith against other editors. If you've been blocked multiple times for 3RR (strongly implied above), then you ARE an edit warrior. If you do truly understand the rules (which I doubt) and are thinking things out before editing, then I have to conclude that you're just trolling this site for fun. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 15:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Blazing Saddles

A number of the trivia items you whacked are demonstrably true. The problem is where to draw the line, as listing all the overt gags and subtleties in the movie would run for pages. My Jewish friend took one look at the Indian headband in the movie's well-known poster and said "Kosher for Passover!" The "We don't need no stinking badges!" is absolutely taken straight from Treasure of the Sierra Madre.[5] There's even an article on it: Stinking badges. And there's no question that Lili von Shtup is a parody of Merlene Dietrich. However, some of the details in the trivia section, e.g. claims of what other movies are inspirations for certain things in this one, are too obscure to be taken at face value. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm definitely not married to those items. A select few might be worthwhile keeping. I'll take a look at it later. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Terraria#See Also, Why is Mine craft not suitable?

  • Terraria is noted for its similarity to Minecraft and classic exploration-adventure titles...
  • ...as opposed to the often-compared game, Minecraft, in which one must...
  • Another reviewer praised Terraria's integration of some of Minecraft's concepts into two-dimensions...


Does this not validate its position in the See Also section? 4DHS (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's already covered well enough in the article text ("As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body"). DP76764 (Talk) 06:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Diablo III / RS on permaban

I dropped a talk section over at WP:VG/RS as well. That user seems to be adding the site to multiple articles. -- ferret (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn

Absolutely ridiculous that you removed the YouTube links. I suggest YOU take a look at the Wiki guidelines. Video clips CAN be used as sources, and Comedy Central does not air, nor distribute, TCWCQ episodes AT ALL. The fact that you completely removed the links, without even discussing it, or finding other links to replace them, is outrageous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebluenun (talk • contribs) 00:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to the TCWCQ talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebluenun (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Adult Swim programs

What you said on the Adult Swim talk page is exactly the point I was trying to tell the other person. The edit that I made was the original page, and I keep trying to restore it, though he is always changing it to his version of the article, which is low on information. This war actually began in December, and I am merely trying to keep the page in it's original form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.222.242 (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Spinks made SMBX before Terraria

You reverted a recent edit of mine. Spinks made Super Mario Brothers X, http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros._X, but I don't have a source for it, because as far as I can tell he doesn't talk about it openly ever since Nintendo threatened him. Nevertheless, it's wrong to state that Terraria is the first game that he produced. It was arguably his expertise with SMBX that helped him to make Terraria so easily. If you can help to figure out how to cite this, that would be great. http://mariobrosx.webs.com/ https://sites.google.com/a/mtsapd.com/smbx/ 69.196.135.212 (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata and Interwiki links

You are receiving this as you have recently deleted an interwiki link on a page that is not currently on Wikidata.

Please either make sure ALL links are on Wikidata before removing them OR leave the removal of interwiki links to bots.

·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where to find a tool for verifying that, so I'll just leave that to the bots I guess. DP76764 (Talk) 00:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
you may find this useful, although you would save yourself allot of time to just wait a few weeks until they go automatically :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Aye! Looks like you have a full time job just notifying all us chumps who are manually changing this stuff, hehe. DP76764 (Talk) 00:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately yes :P ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your rollbacks to my Archer edit

Are any of the following sufficient sources? http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/tv_club/features/2013/season_4_of_archer_reviewed/week_13/archer_season_4_sealab_finale_jon_hamm_s_deadpan_brilliance_and_an_intense.html , http://kastorskorner.com/wp/2013/04/06/tv-korner-archer-4-12-sea-tunt-part-1/ , http://www.tvfanatic.com/2013/04/archer-review-teotwawki-in-sealab-2021/ , http://www.avclub.com/articles/sea-tunt-part-ii,95805/? I can come up with hundreds more. Or would you prefer I email the producer of the show? Reverting your rollback and adding attribution. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Slate article seems fine. Also, no need for snark next time, thanks. DP76764 (Talk) 21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Stressful week with midterms and all and including the citations I pulled totally slipped my mind (luckily, I still had the tabs open in my browser)... didn't mean to take it out on you. Though next time a helpful comment or constructive criticism on my talk page or the talk page of the article would go further toward ensuring the integrity of the information on Wikipedia than a straight rollback would - as well as avoiding a "WTF" moment on my end haha. Thanks. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
No worries. I tend to utilize the edit summary as a first resort (I believe I commented 'unsourced opinion' in this case) and talk pages as a second resort for persistent edit warriors. Also, I did not utilize the rollback tool in this case, just to be 100% precise; I used the standard 'Undo', the same as you. Best of luck with your midterms! DP76764 (Talk) 21:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The IT Crowd undo

I've reverted your undo on The IT Crowd, because the reference was appropriate as a direct link to the webcomic being referenced ("various xkcd references, such as the "Map of Online Communities" poster"), but previously unlinked, in the article. --76.20.213.47 (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. You're using a WP:PRIMARY (which would be valid for talking about itself) source for a claim in a place where we should be using a WP:SECONDARY (WP:RS) source instead. DP76764 (Talk) 16:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Alistair Moffat

I have raised a topic regarding the section of BritainsDNA at WP:BLP. Your input would be appreciated. Stephen! Coming... 09:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: Talk pages are not a forum for general Q&A discussion. on Symantec

Where did you get that idea, I was wondering if anyone had any more information on it before I went off to search. Pleasetry (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The comment you made was unclear as to how it would actually pertain to improving the article. Just asking others for info here is not what a WP:TALKPAGE is for. DP76764 (Talk) 04:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your tireless work in vandal watching!

JoshuaWalker | Talk 22:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Better?

Apologies for my lacking wikipedia etiquette, as this is my first edit, but why are sentences preceding my edit like "One of the supporting characters from Frisky Dingo, Mr. Ford, makes a cameo appearance in "Drift Problem", the seventh episode of Season 3 of Archer, repeating one of his Frisky Dingo catchphrases ("My ass is everywhere.")." OK with no citation? If there's no relative or opinion language, if it were worded more simply as "In the episode "Midnight Ron," Archer says "Awww, Fat Mike too?" and the same line is spoken by Xander Crews in "Meet Awesome-X" in Frisky Dingo." I agree that would be better, but worded it as I did to match the style of surrounding edits, which I see you also removed this time.

I understand the need for sources, but as the policy about sources you linked to says "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged."

My understanding of this policy is that easily verifiable, unlikely to be challenged things don't need explicit sources, but may still be relevant to the article. For example, does every line in the section that lists a shows characters need a reference to a third party agreeing they exist, or is the fact that their presence can be verified by watching the show enough?

It seems to me the source clearly exists (the primary source, the referenced episodes, satisfying verifiability) and is even mentioned. Any reasonable person who watches the two explicitly mentioned episodes is not going to challenge the similarity, so an explicit reference to secondary sources agreeing it happens is not necessary. Now while there is technically a quotation in the edit, I don't think it's the sort of quotation this rule is concerned with. This, and the other items you removed, don't need explicit citations because they are easily verified with the information provided, and a who watches the mentioned episode would want to challenge them.

Mattblaha (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares

DP, I've reverted the IP's post restarting the discussion regarding restaurant updates. The IP is a sock of Roman888, and has been disrupting for the last 24 hours or so with this garbage. I didn't feel like I should revert your post, so it's there, but wanted you to know why everything else is gone. Cheers! --Drmargi (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, sir, please feel free to clear my stuff out as well in cases like that. :) DP76764 (Talk) 14:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Meg Griffin

Is there any way we can use it? I did source the episode. When I saw no one had changed it, I realized maybe the name was officially changed back in the records, but Meg did say her name wasn't Megan.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I see I should have looked at the history. Sometimes I do that for potentially controversial edits but I didn't see that as being the case here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
As a single mention (so far), I don't think this is going to become a canon (as it were) change. It's regularly a tough call on what to include in articles about this show, as the show really enjoys these random 1-offs. Consensus so far has seemed to fall on the side of not including stuff like this (ie: Peter's ancestors & jobs, Stan Thompson, Quagmire's age, etc) DP76764 (Talk) 18:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say it would be canon. Is there a place for the one-time joke in the article or perhaps in the article about the episode? By the way, I found the solution to discourage those of us who didn't bother to read the history.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps in the article about the episode? I don't really monitor individual episode articles, so I don't know what the practices for them are, but that might actually be the most suitable place for it. DP76764 (Talk) 19:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't do it there because I wasn't sure what the proper way to do it was. But I'll look into it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The format of the episode articles, ironically, doesn't include this type of information.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not 100% surprised. It is kind of trivia/crufty, not necessarily notable, in-universe stuff. A lot of WP:NOT there. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 21:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Meg and Chris Griffins' Incestuality

I noticed that you undid my edit of Chris and Meg Griffin. While this may seem like a pointless edit, I'd like to point out in the episode "Halloween on Spooner Street" Meg and Chris are caught making out in the closet at the party. Along with that in "Dial Meg for Murder", Meg rapes Peter in the shower. If you have other reasons for undoing the edit, just reply. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RabidBadger1632 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Esther Povitsky may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * ''Brody Stevens: Enjoy It!] ''(2013)'''''<ref name="autogenerated1"/>
  • *''Weird Adults with Little Esther]'' (2012)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kat Dennings may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Feb. 20, 2010 on her website and also transitioned into [[video blog]]ging on [[YouTube]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/user/katdennings</ref>.<ref name="Premiere">Miller, Jenni. "[https://web.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter Griffin

Hey, I reverted your reversion on Peter Griffin's page. However, I will not engage in edit warring. I explained why I did so in the talk section. If you still feel it is a inappropriate addition, feel free to revert it again, and I won't change it back. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dp76764/Archive_1&oldid=1146511304"