User talk:Sergay/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Twilight link

Came across this, brought you to mind. Cliff smith ^talk 06:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

May I ask if you wrote the "Comparison with the book" section at Twilight (2008 film)? I must commend the terrific sourcing of this particular section! I think I will be linking to it to show others how to address such adaptations. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that section, so thank you very much! I'm honoured that you'd like to show it to others as an example. :D Andrea (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Twilight

Thanks for spotting the earlier vandalism that I had missed. Dbfirs 22:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Kristen Stewart

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Kristen Stewart. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 71.232.26.8 (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm ... WP:DTTR? I'm sure Sergay has something to say on this topic. Icy // ♫ 02:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thanks Icy. I'll explain my revert here in full before reverting once again then: Stewart's comment about driving from London to Russia tends to be used to mock her (such as in the article provided as a reference), and mockery is not something to be included in an encyclopedia. And, even if that wasn't the intended purpose, her wanting to visit a country in the world is random useless trivia and not worthy of noting. Andrea (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Breaking Dawn

Hello. I don't contribute often on en.wikipedia, but I can see that this is a "suffering" history, and you are very active in protecting this kind of pages. May I suggest a request for a long semi-protection (two weeks or a month)? Since I'm not a "regular" and I requested last time it would look unnatural for me to make this request again. --Austroungarika scold or call 15:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Forever Dawn

Meyer wrote the book. Just please fill me in on why it is not a real thing to be involved on the Twilight Template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilight 90210 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

New Moon (2009 film)

Thanks for keeping up with all of the vandalism/unnecessary edits made to the article while I'm absent. This morning, I requested that the page be semi-protected. It looks as though that request has been granted. Hopefully this will keep all of these crazy edits to a minimum. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 03:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to move article New Moon (Twilight series) incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page New Moon (Twilight series) to a different title - however your request is either incomplete or has been contested for being controversial, and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Pattinson

Hi. Please do not add or re-add unsourced material to articles, as you did with this edit to the Robert Pattinson. Whether "sources agree" is irrelevant if those sources are not cited in the article. The source cited at the end of the opening sentence makes no mention of his birthdate, nor must information be sourced merely if it's "contentious". Please see WP:V.

Regarding the issue of Notes or References raised in this edit, the list of formatted footnotes to which a reader is brought when they click on the footnotes in the article's body is called Notes, whereas References is for the non-formatted list of sources used in some articles, as indicated here, here and here. However, I am trying to investigate this matter further, and have been told that either is acceptable, and that it should not be changed for reasons of mere stylistic choice, so I'm going to leave that one alone, at least until some type of consensus discussion can be held on this point. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on whether it was false. My only interest in it is that it be sourced, and in that regard, WP:Burden correctly states that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, not with other editors who find that material to be unsourced. This is the correct policy, because if you obligate editors other than the ones who add or re-add the material, then what you're doing is setting up a slippery slope in which anyone can place any ol' material in an article, without any responsibility on their part to maintain standards in sourcing it, and leaving others to clean up their mess. Under the system your suggest, a vandal could add material that isn't "contentious" as in the Seigenthaler incident, but untrue nonetheless, which would make dealing with it problematic, and indeed, as a WikiGnome/WikiFairy who removes vandalism, I can assure you that much vandalism is of this subtle type. How then, to deal with it if I do not know if it's true or not? Take this edit for example. Wanna know how I knew to revert it? Simple. It's because there's a source for Baya's full name. Having created and maintained that article almost single-handedly, I made sure to get sources for everything, including the cast names, because their full names typically aren't given on the show. Without this standard, responding to that edit would've been problematic.

Wikipedia's quality will be best maintained if each person who adds material does their part by citing the source where they found the info. Isn't that rather fair and democratic? I notice a lot of people saying things like, "You could've found a source easily." Well, yeah, but then why doesn't that point apply to the person insisting on including the material. Sometimes, I do search for or add sources, but when I do so, I do so because I choose to, not because I have to. Check my Edit History if you don't believe me. But it is not reasonable to obligate me to do so every time I find unsourced material, which is every day.

As for the articles you mentioned, well, just glancing at the Jackie Chan article revealed a sentence ending in two periods instead of one. Should we assume that this is correct, or can we agree that even Featured Articles are not perfect? I and others have edited Featured Articles, after all, which is an obvious indication that FA status does not confer a chiseled-in-stone quality regarding further improvements. If those articles have unsourced info, then that's wrong, and they should be sourced. Pointing to other examples of policy violations does not make them not policy violations. Incidentally, Gyllenahaal and Witherspoon's birthdates are indeed sourced, albeit less clearly than they could be: They're not sourced in the Leads (which is supposed to be a summary of the article), but they are sourced in the first sentence of the first sections, which mentions their birth, even if the dates are not mentioned in that sentence. I've fixed this. Lastly, consider that quite a few times when I photographed these people, I heard complaints from them that their articles contained false information, even on trivial matters like date of birth. Sourcing everything solves this problem, and will help improve Wikipedia's reputation. But I'll see if I can start a consensus discussion to address this issue. Nightscream (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Twilight (novel). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --Chris (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sergay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I performed only 3 reverts in the past 24 hours, and not more than 3 as stated in the three-revert rule guidelines. The revert prior to those 3 was actually an addition of new information (references to support the claim being removed by the other user). As well, I considered User:Clab6's actions to be vandalism, as he or she was removing content repeatedly despite warnings, explanations, and it being contrary to the sources provided. Thanks. Andrea (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not entitled to three reverts every 24 hours. Note that User:Clab6 was blocked for 48 hours, while you only for three. Would you like me to make both blocks equal? Next time, request page protection or a number of other measure, but do not edit war in response. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Page protection was not the right measure to take in this case, as the issue was not with multiple users. As well, the page is indeed already semi-protected at the moment. And I am well aware that I am not entitled to 3 reverts, which is why I explained my reasons for reverting User:Clab6's edits. However, if appealing a block suddenly warrants an increased block length, I will obviously take my 3 hours. Andrea (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

By way of explanation, I saw the edit war going on and noticed that you and Clab6 were the most active participants. While not technically breaking three reverts, you both had three for yesterday and another three the day before. This is indicative to me of a behavior problem. Clab6 was blocked for longer because he has a history of 3RR violation, while you have a history of good contributions. I would still advise you to open discussion with Clab6 on the article talk page or one of your personal talk pages when his block expires and not continue warring. --Chris (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

His Dark Materials task force

A His Dark Materials task force has been created here, you are invited to join. Pmlinediter ^Talk 09:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sergay. You have new messages at Pmlinediter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.