User talk:Pixelface/Archive 2

Regarding your post regarding a comment I made at TFD

The Template:Recent book and Template:Recent film templates were "virtually G4 speedy candidates" because they were "substantially identical" to the deleted version of Template:Current fiction, and they certainly did not "address the reasons for which the material was deleted".

You have offended me with your endless months-long campaign of wikilawyering, forum-shopping, tendentious editing, and continual, continual beating of the dead horse that is spoiler warnings. A long time ago I could have assumed good faith regarding those templates. Now, it's impossible to see them as anything other than yet another attempt to try to drag the spoilers situation into yet another discussion, hoping (in vain, thankfully) that this time the consensus would be different. --Stormie (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really sound like an apology to me. How was {{recent book}} and {{recent film}} substantially identical to {{current fiction}}? Are all books fiction? Are all films fiction? The templates {{recent book}} and {{recent film}} have nothing to do with spoiler warnings and if they are similar to any templates, it's {{current product}} and {{recent death}}. You said I created those templates for disruption but you are wrong. You said I have no interest in creating an encyclopedia but you are wrong. That's a personal attack and I don't appreciate it. You have no right to say that. Take a look at my contribution history. If I have been focused on the issue of spoiler warnings for the past while, it is because of edit-warring on the Eastern Promises article and my research into what has happened over the past 7 months. But {{recent book}} and {{recent film}} still have nothing to do with spoiler warnings.

If you think spoiler warnings are still a dead horse, go see where the admin you quoted has been talking. You have convinced me to make a request for arbitration and I'll be sure to name you as an involved party. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Improper close of CFD

The consensus was overwhelming. The deletion was peformed based on policy and guidelines, not personal likes and dislikes. Nobody supports the existence of those categories except yourself. --Stormie (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There was consensus to delete those categories, but administrators should not close debates they took part in. You should know that. --Pixelface (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Promises

As you perfectly well know, WP:NOR permits the use of primary sources under certain circumstances, including plot summaries. As you perfectly well know, there are thousands of such plot summaries on Wikipedia. I only know of about 3 people who have ever suggested that WP:NOR was being violated. Wouldn't it be awfully surprising if such a fundamental rule was being flouted so often, without anyone else noticing???

Your interest on Eastern Promises clearly has nothing to do with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, or any other policy. Your only interest is in protecting readers from spoilers. You tried about 10 different ways of putting spoiler warnings on the article, all of which were reverted. When all of those had failed, you removed the whole plot summary. When that failed, you added the section on the Director's Comments. Now that it has been challenged, you have once again returned to the earlier approach of trying to get the whole plot summary removed. If you could get the spoiler warning back, I' m sure you'd once again forget about the alleged policy violations in the plot summary.

I thought that Radiant summarized it beautifully, about a month ago:

“ I'm sure you see yourself as fighting the "good fight", and you may very well be right about Spoilers and Plot Summary sources, but now you are just creating an unproductive atmosphere, as well as the perception of being Quixotic (or worse). No matter how "right" you are (or may later be proved to be), WP works thanks to consensus. For days now you have stated your perspective and those who differ with it have stated theirs: it is clear your position on these subjects is outnumbered. It loses. That's (WP) life. Deal with it. And move on. I've been there a number of times. ”

Marc Shepherd (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR says "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I have no idea if that Plot section is made up or not. It has no citations. What's the primary source it's written from and how do you know which source the editor who wrote it wrote it from? It would be surprising if nobody noticed the policy on no original research was being ignored, but several people have. See JzG's comments at WT:SPOILER.

Your interest in the Eastern Promises article clearly has nothing to do with the actual article. What work have you done on the article? I've made 62 edits as of the time of this post.[1] Your only interest in the article seems to be to tagteam with Erik, who seems to think WP:SPOILER is a content policy, when it's just a style guideline. Doczilla's removal of the spoiler warning inserted by 84.191.184.240 was per WP:SPOILER — that I can agree on. Erik removed the Director's comments concerning the plot section on December 29 "per WP:SPOILER", which is totally ludicrous. The section is not a disclaimer and does not violate WP:SPOILER. The Director's commentary section is not a spoiler warning and I'd like to know which policy it violates. The plot summary cites no reliable sources so any editor may remove it at any time per policy. I really don't know why you're fighting to keep unsourced material in the article. The burden of evidence is on you, not me.

And Radiant! didn't say that, JimDunning did. Either way, I don't care. You helped orphan a template for months so it could be deleted and it's been deleted when there was no consensus to delete it. It seems to me your work on the Eastern Promises article is done. If you have any actual contribution to make to the Eastern Promises article, please do so. You can start by citing reliable sources who have written about the plot. Here's 170 you can choose from. Or you can help include material about the criminal tattoos that's been posted on the talk page. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As you know, no one gets to declare when another editor's work is done. I've had Eastern Promises on my watchlist for a very long time. I saw that there was conflict, so I stepped in to support the position that appeared to me correct. Reverting counter-productive edits is an "actual" contribution, too. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true, no one gets to declare when another editor's work is done. If you have any actual work you'd like to do on the article, please do so. And make sure you cite reliable sources. Reverting an edit that removes unsourced material and calling that edit "vandalism" is not an actual contribution. When you make an actual contribution to the article, you'll have my thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions incorporating critics' "top ten" list information into dozens of film articles on January 6 2008. A time-consuming and laborious task which is greatly appreciated by all. Steve T • C 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

71.109.40.214's spoiler edit

I also suspect after a quick review of 71.109.40.214's edits that the disclaimer isn't the only WP guideline she/he hasn't read (whether or not all of the edits attributed to 71.109.40.214 are the work of one person; e.g. "REMOVED BRETT RATNER NOT TALENTED ENOUGH TO BE MENTIONED").
Jim Dunning | talk 12:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia:Television episodes. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello, Pixelface. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Corvus cornix_talk 22:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough

Stop the reverts please. I've rv'd you back on a bunch. Other editors will pick up the rest. You can take it to 3RR if you want and be blocked, but honestly what's the point. We know what you are trying to prove, but our policies run the other way, so this is achieving very little. Eusebeus (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to redirect the articles I've brought back, see Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. You cannot claim there is consensus to redirect them. I'll be continuing to undo those redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. If you continue, there is a possibility that you will be blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. I'm reverting edits that occurred 11 days ago, edits that do not reflect consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You have undone another editors edits, and back and forth. That is edit warring. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've undone edits once. Undoing edits is not edit warring. My edits reflect the consensus at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. --Pixelface (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You can be guilty of edit-warring without breaking 3RR on any one article. This is horizontal edit-warring (# of articles), not vertical edit-warring (# of reverts) Please stop. There are dispute resolution proceedures if you need to use them. SirFozzie (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've engaged in "horiztontal edit-warring?" I see no mention of that at WP:EW. Take a look at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes and look at the history of the My Buddy's Booty article and tell me who's the editor who's edit warring. What dispute resolution steps do you recommend? --Pixelface (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, enough

Stop now, please, or I will block you. BLACKKITE 22:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Block me for what? WP:BLOCK says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia." I'm not harming the project. And I'm not engaging in disruptive behavior. My edits reflect that there is no consensus at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes that those episode articles should all be redirects. So I'm undoing the redirects. Could you pleae tell me how Talk:List of Scrubs episodes shows there is a consensus those episode articles should all be redirects? --Pixelface (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but policy says that they should be redirected or deleted if they do not meet our policies. See the AN/I thread - I replied there. As for blocking, you quoted it yourself. Following another editor's contribs round and undoing them all is disruption unless those edits are vandalism.BLACKKITE 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Which policies do those articles violate? I'm not following anyone's contributions around. I'm going to each Scrubs episode article, looking at the non redirected version, looking at the history, and removing the redirects because there is no consensus at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes for those articles to be redirects. --Pixelface (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

See the AN/I thread. Let's keep this discussion in one place. BLACKKITE 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

I suggest you revert this edit [2] and do not action this "threat". I am not sure quite why you appear to think that consensus trumps policy here. Take this article that you reverted earlier (My Big Mouth). A small plot summary and a paragraph of original research. Why does this need to exist as a separate article? Answer: it doesn't. BLACKKITE 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a threat. And I don't see which policy the article My Big Mouth violates. If an article gets too big per WP:SIZE, it's perfectly acceptable to split it into sub-articles per WP:SUMMARY. The Scrubs episode articles are perfectly in line with the sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of Futurama episodes. I've been informed recently that consulting a primary source (a television episode in this case), and writing a plot summary is not original research. It's source-based research. Why does the article My Big Mouth need to be redirected, but Bart the General doesn't? --Pixelface (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And if you have an opinion about Scrubs episode articles in general, you need to go to Talk:List of Scrubs episodes and leave it there. --Pixelface (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already told you which policies the Scrubs article violates. Personally, I'd merge the Simpsons article as well for the same reason. But per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, the existence of that article does not justify the existence of any other. It may be useful here to seriously consider whether the course of action which you appear determined to pursue is a good idea. BLACKKITE 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about WP:NOT#PLOT? The Scrubs episode articles have more than just a plot summary so WP:NOT#PLOT does not apply to them. I really don't care what the essay WP:ATA says. The existence of a wide range of articles (the sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of Futurama episodes) shows there is consensus for the existence of articles like the Scrubs episodes articles. Guidelines like WP:EPISODE exist to document consensus, not create it. The consensus among editors who edit actual articles is that individual episode articles do not have to assert individual notability. And yes, I think removing the redirects from the Scrubs episode articles is a good idea. It may be useful to you to look into an issue before you accuse someone of stalking and threaten them with a block. --Pixelface (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is my last word on this. A plot summary and a few pieces of trivia do not make an encyclopedic article. If you really wished these articles to stay as separate articles, you would be spending your time improving them so that this argument would become unnecessary. I'll say it again - consensus does not trump policy. Blocking a user is a last resort (as you will see from my comment on AN/I), but if you continue to deliberately fail to recognise the points that numerous users are making to you, and continue in disruptive editing patterns, then I cannot rule it out. BLACKKITE 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bart the General article has existed for 4 1/2 years and proves you wrong. I removed the redirects from Scrubs articles so people could find them and improve them. I'll say it again, the articles I removed redirects from do not violate policy. You can't block me for following the no consensus on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. My edits to the Scrubs episode articles were in no way disruptive. Corvus cornix decided to take me to ANI, but I think it's clear I engaged in no disrupting editing and my edits were not harmful to the project. You still haven't apologized to me for accusing me of stalking, but you're forgiven. --Pixelface (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_Television_Episodes_Edit_Wars. John254 04:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In your arbcom statement, you once again state that a plot with an infobox means that it does not fail WP:NOT#PLOT but to the best of my knowledge, I think you are misunderstanding that an infobox is not real world info. Having an infobox does not automatically mean that the episode article gets a free pass to be exempt from WP:NOT#PLOT.

Also, as it has been explained to you before, TTN has not taken any action on Simpsons articles because it was discussed with the project, who said they were working on improving the episodes. That is an example of good collaboration so please stop bringing it up as some sort of bad thing. The Simpsons articles are being worked on by a dedicated group, unlike many, many other series.

The other key difference about The Simpsons, is that because it is so popular and successful in mainstream media, it has had a lot of press coverage, which means lots of reliable sources which discuss real world info such as editing choices, info about voice actors, character design etc. Scrubs is not likely to have the same coverage in mainstream media, however if a group of dedicated editors were to say "We will work on these articles to conform to policy", I'm sure that TTN and any other editors who are helping in the effort to clean up wikipedia, would quite happily say, ok. Seraphim ^Whipp 14:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A television episode article with an infobox is not simply a plot summary, so WP:PLOT does not apply to it. Infoboxes do contain real-world information. I'll continue to bring up The Simpsons episode articles as evidence that episode articles that do not establish notability by including significant coverage in reliable sources have been allowed to exist on Wikipedia for years and years. WP:EPISODE does not document consensus — it's an attempt to engineer it according to how a handful of editors think things should be done. Take a look at the sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes articles. As of January 6, 2008, 410 episodes of the show have aired and they all have articles, yet they do not all contain significant coverage in reliable sources. That indicates that the episodes are considered notable despite not having significant coverage in reliable sources. Episode articles for The Simpsons, South Park, and Futurama are allowed to exist, but I see no reason why episode articles for Scrubs cannot also exist. I don't think TTN is cleaning up Wikipedia — he's seriously harming the project and refusing to discuss his sweeping changes and doing it in a totally inconsistent way. If Wikipedia had a policy against television episode articles long ago, I would support TTN's actions. But television episode articles are not against policy and never have been. Thank you for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes don't contain the right sort of information as outlined in WP:NOT#PLOT "should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance", surely you see that? Show me one infobox which has that information that I've just quoted from the policy.

I'm not sure I can continue dialogue with you because it seems like you don't understand why The Simpsons are being left alone for the time being. They might have existed for ages, does that mean they are good? No. If we have a hoax that stays in mainspace for 4 years, does it mean we shouldn't delete it, just because it's existed for all that time? No, clearly. It was probably just never noticed. Another example, if there is a BLP article full of attacks against it's subject and it exists for 4 years, should we not delete it?

No one is saying that all the Simpsons articles are notable and I'm not sure why you keep presuming that.

There's something else I must point out. Guidelines and policies have changed in the 4 years since the Bart the General article was created. It may have been acceptable content at that time. As you've said, consensus changes.

I just can't help feeling like everytime you pounce on The Simpsons as a series, you are insulting the hard work of everyone who has devoted their time to making both FAs and GAs, because you are making such a big deal out of the articles which are bad, instead of recognising that their project has done so much good work. You're just going about this in the wrong way. Seraphim ^Whipp 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT is a list of things that Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia articles are not to be simply plot summaries. When WP:NOT#PLOT says "should cover their real-world context", the word "should" can mean "must" and it can mean a recommendation. I agree that articles ought to cover real-world context. An infobox provides real-world context. Policies flow from consensus. Policies document consensus, they do not create it. The article Bart the General has an infobox and lists the episode number, production code, airdate, producers, writer, director, etc. That is real world information. That is detail on a work's development.

You're right. I don't understand why The Simpsons episode articles are being left alone. There are several featured articles about The Simpson episodes and several Good articles, but articles like The Joy of Sect don't make Duffless a better article. Duffless is allowed to remain, is not redirected, yet articles like My Number One Doctor are redirected for not containing significant coverage in reliable sources. I realize there is Simpsons WikiProject that can work on The Simpsons episode articles, but there is also a TV WikiProject that can work on television episode articles in general.

The fact that Bart the General has existed for 4 1/2 years indicates that episode articles do not have to establish individual notability. The episode is notable because the show is notable. The Simpsons is notable enough to have an article. The TV show The Simpsons is a series of episodes. The television show does not exist except as a collection of episodes. You cannot have the television show without the episodes. The show is notable. The episodes are the show and are notable. And I think TV ratings also make an episode notable.

I know TTN knows about the The Simpsons articles because I've asked him about them on two occasions, two months apart. I do not agree with the idea that the Bart the General article has been a problem for 4 1/2 years but has gone unnoticed. The consensus among editors appears to me to be that episodes of notable television shows deserve separate articles, and those articles do not have to establish notability apart from the show itself.

Policies and guidelines exist to document consensus. If something is a current practice, policies and guidelines should describe what's being done. Guidelines are not places for editors to decide on new rules that other editors must follow and then enforce those guidelines like they are policy. I do not think WP:EPISODE accurately describes the current consensus about television episode articles, and the guideline is disputed.

I don't mean to insult the people that have worked on The Simpsons episode articles. I don't mean to "pounce" on the series. I know that The Simpsons WikiProject has put alot of work into many of the articles and I respect that. I know The Simpsons episode articles are resilient and I know the community supports having them. I think each and every episode is notable and deserves its own article. And I think the same courtesy should be extended to other television series, such as Scrubs. This issue comes down to whether every single episode has to assert notability in order to have an article, and I think The Simpsons episode articles show that episode articles do not have to assert individual notability.

TTN, with his tens of thousands of edits, has been burying the work of everyone who has ever worked on an television episode article. He's obviously a fan of The Simpsons and gives time for those articles to develop, yet he insists that articles about episodes of other television shows have a little over two weeks to be improved or he redirects them. I have added citations for Emmy awards for television episodes of other series and TTN redirected the articles again anyway. TTN has told me "When other series have over sixty good episode articles (or a comparable amount), we'll talk about leaving the rest of their episodes alone." So it's clear that The Simpsons episode articles that do not establish notability are inheriting notability from the Good articles in the series. TTN has told me regarding The Simpsons episode articles, "In the future, there may be some episodes that cannot stand on their own. If that is the case, I'm sure that the Simpsons project will deal with them accordingly." That same courtesy is not extended to other episode articles, and no assumption is made that members of the TV WikiProject will deal with them.

TTN is not a member of WikiProject Television. TTN has made 9 edits to WT:TV[3] and his edits are clearly controversial among the people there[4] I think TTN is harming the project. Redirecting an article does not improve it. It's a barrier to improvement.

I don't think I'm going about this in the wrong way. I think TTN and editors enforcing WP:EPISODE like it's a policy are going about this the wrong way. I saw that there was no consensus for Scrubs episode articles to be redirects at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes so I removed the redirects. I'm open for discussion. I'm willing to discuss changes to WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT and come to a compromise. TTN on the other hand has refused to discuss his edits in any sort of collaborative way with other editors. If you think I'm going about this in the wrong way, you should really look into TTN's edits, and his talk page, and the multiple ANI threads about him, and the past arbitration case involving him. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I am totally interested in collaboration but I think it's obvious that TTN is not. --Pixelface (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As was said to another editor recently, don't concentrate on what TTN is doing, concentrate on what you are doing. Your focus on TTN is not helping collaboration. Ignore who makes the edits and discuss edits on the edit's merit. I can't discuss The Simpsons anymore because I have the strong feeling that you are inflexible to what I'm saying and that nothing I say will make any difference to your opinions, which is a shame. I am glad you said you respect the Simpsons project though. Do you have an interest in The Simpsons? Maybe you could visit their project page and give them a hand? :). Good luck editing. Seraphim ^Whipp 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bart the General

One user got the page to GA quality in a matter of few hours. So, it isn't THAT hard to get episodes to meet the requirements and the Simpsons WikiProject has proven we can do it. Perhaps you should try improving Scrubs pages rather than claiming that there is a pro-Simpsons bias? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Scrubs episode articles should be given 4 1/2 years to reach GA quality like Bart the General did. --Pixelface (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If somebody had merged the page, we would have just improved it and then had it unmerged. You seem more content to try and change the policy rather than do any hard work. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If the article was a redirect and List of Simpsons episodes did not have a wikilink to it, how would an editor even know there was an article for it so it could be improved? I don't know what policy you're referring to, but it seems to me that certain editors redirecting episode articles are more content with hiding articles rather than doing any hard work improving them, or letting other people find the articles so they could work on them. --Pixelface (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, the current episode policy did not exist for the first 3 1/2 years of the existance of the article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That indicates that the current episode guideline does not describe current practice but is an attempt by a handful of editors to change current practice. The consensus policy says "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it." --Pixelface (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No I don't, because that is rather pointish. We're given time because we've proven we can take little known episodes to GA status, and pardon us if we don't have enough time to get all 400 episodes to meet standards RIGHT NOW. We've already saved 100 episode pages and the reason people don't start merge proposals is because then it would be selected merging. An episode like Rosebud is far more notable than King of the Hill but why should it be merged when we've proven we can do it, but just don't have enough time yet.

Personally, I think you should stop using us as an example in your war against the policy. We've proven we can get any episode to meet the guidelines, and there are dozens of less notable series out there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What I asked you wasn't pointish. Is it easier for editors to improve articles when they are redirects or not redirects? What I asked you is consistent with how WP:EPISODE is being enforced. You've proven you can take episode articles to GA status in 4 1/2 years. There is no episode policy. It's a guideline and a disputed one at that. You've proven that you can make episode articles meet the guideline in 4 1/2 years. Why episode articles for other series are not also given 4 1/2 years is the main question. I'm using Simpsons episode articles to describe current practice — and that is what policies and guidelines are supposed to document. --Pixelface (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm done. You clearly don't like The Simpsons and you clearly don't like the fact that people don't seem concerned about its episode pages. By the way, the Scrubs episode My Heavy Meddle existed for 1 1/2 years before it was merged, My Two Dads has been around for three years, so please stop saying that none of these episodes are given a chance. The reason we are given time is because we've saved 100+ episode pages (more episodes than any other series) and the mergers appreciate that we don't have unlimited time to improve pages, so we are given time. Simpsons episodes: 60 GAs within an 8 month period, Scrubs episodes: 2 GAs within an 8 month period. So which show has more potential for improvement?

For the final time, there were no guidelines for 3 1/2 years so it's not like the page went against policy the entire time. It really doesn't matter how much time we get, even if the page had been merged 4 years ago, it would have been improved, then unmerged. So if TTN suddenly decided to go after season 16 like you suggested, instead of bitching about the policy, we would improve them and get them back. If you REALLY want to save the episodes of Scrubs, you should stop whining and improve the damn articles. It's that simple. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I actually *do* like The Simpsons and I like the articles too. All I'm saying is that those articles are given years and years to develop and other articles should be given time to develop too because that is current practice. I don't care how many Simpsons episode articles are GAs. If every article has to include significant coverage from outside sources (and WP:EPISODE says they do), the Good articles don't make the other articles assert notability. Personally, I don't think every episode article has assert notability. And current practice is that each episode article does not have to assert notability. WP:EPISODE is wrong. And I have no way of knowing whether one television series has more potential for improvement than another. What I do know is that redirects are a barrier to improvement.

I know there was no episode guideline for 3 1/2 years. I know that episode articles that do not have significant coverage from outside sources do not violate policy. I'm not bitching against any policy. WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT are not policy. They're guidelines and guidelines are supposed to describe current practice. Current practice is to let articles develop over years and years. So WP:EPISODE is wrong. It does not describe current practice.

I don't have to improve the Scrubs episode articles. I *do* however need to give those articles years to develop and I need to remove the redirects from the articles because there is no consensus for those articles to be redirects at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. Redirects prevent an article from being improved. I'm not whining. I'm saying that episode articles are allowed years to develop and don't have to be GA anytime soon. Perfection is not required. It's that simple. --Pixelface (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [5]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface, while I can understand your frustration, I would like to suggest that you try to reign in your emotions when posting. Otherwise, you will find that your comments aren't taken seriously. (This is just FYI, no offence intended.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I've agreed with the comments you've made at WT:EPISODE and I will consider my words more carefully. --Pixelface (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Howdy. I have a question for you. Would you like me to show you exactly how easy it is to see past a redirect (if it's truly a redirect and not a delete then put a redirect, and if that's the case, as an admin, if you come across one that TRULY qualifies under our policies, I will undelete it for you) and recover the state an article was in? SirFozzie (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy is what seems to be the issue here. I think articles like Duffless and My Mentor violate no policies. I personally know how to get past a redirect, but I've also been an editor since June 2006. Now, an unregistered user looking at List of Scrubs episodes has no idea there are articles they can work on for each of those episodes. Even when registered users add information to articles like My Own Worst Enemy, TTN finds it personally unacceptable. If you know how to put &redirect=no within double bracketed wikilinks, I'd be interested in knowing that. --Pixelface (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your message on my talk

Feel free to add me as a party if you want. To be as civil as I can, at this point I cannot be bothered to waste my time with your incessant attempts to wikilawyer your way round policy, and it appears that my attitude is one which many others share. BLACKKITE 15:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll add your name to the case. You have not cited any policy that says my edits to the Scrubs episode articles are not allowed and to threaten to block people you disagree with and to publicly accuse me of "stalking" is simply unacceptable behavior for an administrator. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom's statement

Hi Pixelface. Thanks for your enthusiastic contribution to the current arbcom case. What I can say, I was deeply impressed by your long explicit statement which is successfully presented in such a forthright manner. Just a little concern, your statement contains a lot of important investigational documentation which is supposed to be put in the evidence page. I think it would be better if you trim down the statement (or just keep the short version) and bring the long version with evidence to the more appropriate place. Best wishes. @pple complain 15:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I was not sure if there was a word limit on statements before a case was accepted. I'll remove my long statement and refactor it for the evidence page. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

your evidence section

I edited your evidence section to add whitespace around the diffs; I made no content change. This was to stop page-widening; i.e. a horizontal scrollbar. Could you please format things this way in the future? Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the message. --Pixelface (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

'wikilinks that may confuse readers'

I noticed your edit to That Was Then This Is Now with explanation removing wikilinks that may confuse readers per MOS:DAB. Just wondering... where in MOS:DAB is mention of wikilinks that may confuse readers? I am having trouble finding that. Thanks! --Anthony5429 (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

MOS:DAB says "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link. To avoid confusing the reader, do not wikilink any other words in the line." I removed wikilinks to other articles so readers could more easily find the article they may be looking for. --Pixelface (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pointing that out. I will join you in your cause. --Anthony5429 (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think I've only done that on one disambiguation page so I wouldn't say I have a "cause" or anything. I think I looked at MOS:DAB for tips on how to format them. I don't see anything wrong with more than one wikilink per line on disambiguation pages, but I can see how one wikilink would help. There can be exceptions to guidelines. --Pixelface (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to episodes and characters

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

For the duration of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (c.f. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message (link) have been notified of this injunction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive Your Talk page

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Thanks ?Dillard421? ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, MiszaBot can also be used to archive user talk pages. That way you don't have to worry about managing the archives or having to manually deal with the copy/pasting. I started using it on mine, and its been much nicer not having to do daily to weekly cleanings. :) Collectonian (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Collectonian! --Pixelface (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Thank you

Hello Pixelface, I had no idea about the temporary injunction, if I did I would never have tagged those articles, please accept my apology for this mistake, and thank you for informing me of this. Polly (Parrot) 20:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Futon Critic

Hello Pixelface. I am unsure how to start an article on the path of AFD, as per your suggestion at The Futon Critic. Can you tell me what to do? Rockhound (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. You can read the steps at WP:AFD. Basically, you need to do this:

1. Put this {{subst:afd1}} on the article The Futon Critic. In the edit summary, put AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Futon Critic]]. Save the page
2. In the AFD box at the top, click the link saying "this article's entry" to open the debate page. Put this {{subst:afd2 | pg=The Futon Critic | cat=W | text=REASON}} ~~~~ and replace REASON with why you think the article should be deleted. Use an edit summary like Creating deletion discussion page for [[The Futon Critic]]. Save the page.
3. Open the AFD log page. Today that would be here[6]. You can see the current log page here, in the III section. At the top of the list, put {{subst:afd3 | pg=The Futon Critic}}. In the edit summary, put Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Futon Critic]]. Save the page.

That's it. --Pixelface (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, before you list the article for deletion, you should read this section on WP:AFD and read the deletion policy. It's a courtesy to notify the creator of the article on their talk page that you've listed the article for deletion, (in this case you would put {{subst:AFDWarning|The Futon Critic}} ~~~~ on User talk:Seinfreak37). --Pixelface (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I think I've done things properly now, but feel free to check me out and make sure I'm doing things right! Rockhound (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good :) --Pixelface (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Great! Still learning the ins and outs of being more than just a random editor, so I really appreciate the guidance and assistance. Rockhound (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omglolwtfbbq

Hi there, when closing AfDs please remember to archive the AfD using these instructions. No need to worry, I went ahead and did it for you. Cheers, EJF (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried looking for that info at WP:AFD and WP:DGFA and couldn't find it. Now I know (although I don't plan on closing any more AFDs). --Pixelface (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

re:Template:Infobox Comics creator

Thanks.

I was trying to set a size limit and was getting no where fast. I had just hit the frustrating realization that the function call I was trying to use isn't compatible with that particular overall infobox formatting and was going to selfrevert, but you beat me to it.

- J Greb (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Points

Perhaps this kind of churlishness is not intended to be pointy and I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you did not create this account to go through in a tendentious tagging spree. Thus, if you are genuinely convinced that the Symphonies of Joseph Haydn are not notable, then I suggest you either takeit up at WP:NOT per WP:MUSIC, or - better - flag them for AfD and get consensus behind you for a delete and redirect to the main list. But throwing tantrums at the talk page is unhelpful. You can do better. Eusebeus (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this sarcastic comment by me and not the edit by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. If I wanted to be pointy, I would have taking a cue from TTN and redirected every symphony article to a list article by now.

I've already asked you about your seemingly inconsistent view of notability on your talk page and I received no reply. I did put a {{notability}} tag on the Symphony No. 59 (Haydn) article. But I didn't create the account Pops Culture, and I don't know who it is. Perhaps they're trying to clean out all the "dross" that's "clogging" up Wikipedia...

Personally, I think the symphonies of Joseph Haydn are notable (along with episodes of notable television series), and I don't need a References section to tell me that. I did start a discussion at WT:MUSIC about it.

I was not throwing a tantrum. My first and second reply to your comment, was an attempt to try to make you see things from another perspective.

It frankly bothers me when editors blank countless articles and redirect them to a list article. It does not improve Wikipedia in any way. Would you like it if I redirected Symphony No. 59 (Haydn) to List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn before you added sources? Even after you added sources? Would you like it if a handful of users had a discussion on Talk:List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn and decided amongst themselves to redirect them all without your input? That is what it's like for editors on episode/character articles.

I suppose I would take your campaign to redirect articles that do not assert notability more seriously if you had actually practiced what you preach on articles you've created. Words like "TVcruft" (and "symphonycruft") are incivil and are completely unhelpful. The fact is that articles about symphonies don't "clog" up Wikipedia and neither do articles on television episodes. Wikipedia is not paper. --Pixelface (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface, you really need to do better here, especially as editors make an effort to engage you in good faith. Thus:

1) Asserting something does not make it so.
2) This is a discussion about notability & content, not about my editing practices.
3) You make false equivalents. Individual symphonies of Haydn are notable. Episodes of Scrubs are not. This is demonstrably true. Why? Because, Pixelface, because I say so and because I like the symphonies of Joseph Haydn and because I do not like Scrubs episodes.
Oh wait.
No it isn't.
It's because we have policies and guidelines that help us establish notability: WP:N But don't be supine, Pixelface. Does this mean every symphony is notable? No. The standard of notability applies equally to all things. Thus:
4) Frankly: stop your whining and this petty-ante, bush league, tit-for-tat: - "since you are redirecting something I care about, what if I do the same to you?"

I am going to venture that you are old enough (i.e. >12) to do better than that. You need to do better generally in the way you engage these issues, you need to be more intelligent in how you react to what others are saying, you need to stop this mindless and off-point gainsaying. You need to think more seriously about how you frame your arguments. I didn't bother responding to your earlier posting because it was ridiculous. This kind of churlish, querulous, pointy, adolescent behaviour is unbecoming of an editor who wishes to be make a positive impact. Eusebeus (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You've been listed as an involved party in an arbitration case. This actually *is* about your editing practices, which you were recently blocked for. To see you help TTN edit war over redirects and act like WP:N is a policy when it comes to television episode articles, while you ignore WP:N when it comes to symphony articles you've written makes you look inconsistent at best and hypocritical at worst. Redirecting articles does not provide any positive impact so I have to wonder why you help TTN do it. You said "The standard of notability applies equally to all things." So why didn't you assert the notability of those symphonies until I called you on it? --Pixelface (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The symphonies of Haydn are inherently notable per our standards and notability no more need be asserted than for Thomas Edison; this is what I meant when I referred to your ignorance. Junky, unencyclopedic, fan-driven, in-universe, trivia-laden tv-cruft needs be expurgated as non-notable. And that now exhausts my interest in dealing with you on this. I do remind you, however, that you need to do better than your current churlish adolescence. Eusebeus (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. They're notable because Haydn is notable. Thank you for your reply. I just don't want you to get blocked again for edit warring. --Pixelface (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to interject here...I certainly have clashed heads with Pixel before, but I have to defend him a bit now. I don't quite see why necessarily every symphony by Haydn is notable in an of themselves compared to a lot of what you're saying is bad. Sure, a lot of them are...but take, for example, #52 (that was a random number that dropped in my head). Arkivmusic lists seven specific recordings, and at least three of them are part of complete sets and another part of a yet-to-be-completed one. Look at the WP article for it, the closest thing to it making a note for itself is a singular comment by a musicologist. There's also no special name to it. I can't imagine anyone could justify an article about every classical piece that's been recorded (let's say) five times outside of full cycles. (To put it simply, WP:NOTINHERITED)

It sounds to me like you're saying "TV stuff is bad because it's popular culture, but Haydn's been around for two senturies!". It's probably true that in 200 years people won't remember most TV stuff, I'll grant, but I'd imagine that the likely hood of many of Haydn's symphonies surviving until now if they hadn't been by Haydn is also very small. ? Melodia Chaconne ? (talk) 12:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think Eusebeus was quite saying that every symphony by Haydn is notable by default, just that third-party sources could be found for them, satisfying WP:N (which needs a rewrite in my opinion). I personally don't see anything wrong with individual articles for symphonies by notable composers — and I disagree with much of what WP:NOTINHERITED says (although it notes that WP:MUSIC allows for "inherited" notability occasionally). If this was 1785, it would be sad to see no articles about the symphonies because no book had been written about them. And Eusebeus, the simple fact is that fans of Haydn are more likely to edit articles related to Haydn. Wikipedia *is* fan-driven. --Pixelface (talk) 13:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Temporary injunction and "any currently existing article"

As written, it applies only to articles that existed at the time of the injunction; but, in any case, I hope the decision will be finalized soon enough, removing the need to fiddle with the injunction's scope. Kirill 05:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful and speedy reply. --Pixelface (talk) 05:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Omega (1987 computer game)

You removed a prod template from Omega (1987 computer game) indicating "Comments on the talk page indicate the deletion might be controversial". There are only comments on the talk page from two people: the comments of the person who put the prod template there -- me -- and comments from someone saying "I'm not disputing the prod." Can you expand on what comments exactly you're talking about? Did I miss some talk page discussion?

Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I seem to have glanced at the the talk page a little too quickly. I'm contesting the prod but you can nominate the article for deletion if you like. --Pixelface (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

On what basis? The article was prodded because there were insufficient reliable sources. Did you find some? Do you even know what the article is about? Given your lack of comment on this article and your change of rationale, combined with your strange editing pattern today, I've raised this issue at AN/I. Nandesuka (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I can remove a prod for any reason. It's only for non-controversial deletions. Take it to AFD so it can have further discussion. --Pixelface (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I glanced at "contesting at this time" on the talk page and that's why I initally removed the prod. You really have no right to put it back in the article. Take it through the AFD process. --Pixelface (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Randomly de-prodding articles for no reason is disruption of the PROD process. Please take other editor's concerns a little more seriously. Naerii (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not randomly de-prodding articles for no reason. If another editor thinks a deletion might not be uncontroversial, please assume good faith. If the community really thinks an article should be deleted, the discussion at AFD will show that. --Pixelface (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you are contesting a prod because you misread the words "not contesting the PROD at this time" as "contesting the PROD at this time"? You're serious? This isn't a joke? Nandesuka (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I contested the prod because you put it back in the article after I removed it and I think the issue deserves further discussion in AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Having looked into this a bit, I see every indication that you acted correctly and in good faith Pixelface. As I have put more articles into Category:All articles proposed for deletion then I have taken out, I don't say this lightly. 14:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Omega (1987 computer game)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Omega (1987 computer game), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega (1987 computer game). Thank you. Jeepday (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Aw, man

Murdered children never die. Ever. I tried with Christina Marie Williams and it was kept, though I thought it should have been a "no consensus" at least. Wikipedia seems to hold strong inclusionist tendencies. And really, who really knows? Someone anonymous user said that Amy Mihaljevic was as widely covered as Jonbenet Ramsey. I don't know if that's true or not but I don't feel qualified to argue notability with claims like that. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this edit of mine? I can tell you how to AFD that article if you don't know how. --Pixelface (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I know how to AFD stuff, I was just soapboxing a bit. Thanks for the offer though. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Spellbound (software developer)

Even though the article was deleted at the original author's request, if you genuinely feel these folks are notable (and can document it better than he did), there's certainly nothing preventing you from creating a new article (maybe subtitled "computer game developer")! --Orange Mike | Talk 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC) (not really an evil deletionist)

That's not quite true; recreation of deleted content is a criterion for speedy deletion even if the article's title is changed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're missing an important caveat, Percy - recreation of content deleted via a deletion discussion is a speedy delete criterion. This article was deleted per CSD G7 ("author requests deletion") not via a deletion discussion, and thus a recreation certainly would not be a valid CSD. --Stormie (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point; the debate was certainly heading towards a delete result, but as you point out it never got there. An article recreated under a different title would be close enough to justify an AFD, but not quite close enough for speedy deletion to be appropriate. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

• Good luck with that. I will post a notification on the Composers and Classical Music Project pages in the even tyou have failed to notify the relevant projects. Eusebeus (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Alright, but I don't see why that's necessary. I've been notifying the major contributors and creators of the articles on their user talk pages. --Pixelface (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You don't see why that is necessary? You will soon be disabused. And you will need to work very hard to convince me and other editors that this is a good faith nomination btw, backed up by evidence on your part that this is not disruptive and pointy, but in fact a well-reasoned action. Otherwise, you likely open yourself to a block for disruptive editing. Eusebeus (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge discussions don't have to be brought up on WikiProjects and that sort of thing could actually be considered canvassing. The fact is that those articles are very poor on their own but when merged together could become a featured list. --Pixelface (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pixelface:_Disruptive_.26_Pointy. Eusebeus (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Musical instruments from The Legend of Zelda series

Hi! Regarding your proposal to merge with The Legend of Zelda (series) - I think that's the best idea if the page isn't kept, and I'm happy to help with the wording if that eventuates. - Bilby (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I was bold and merged it earlier but I guess that was reverted. After seeing your improvements to the article I changed my mind to keep. I think it's a good article on its own. --Pixelface (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notification

Thank you for notifying me on my Talk page about your merger proposal. I agree completely with the many editors who opposed it in discussion. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for your view on the matter. --Pixelface (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re User:VivianDarkbloom

Thanks for your message on my talkpage. I note that the above editor has been unblocked by another uninvolved admin. I would comment that "Sock" is a shorthand for the term "Alternate Account" and, as you say, not a reason for performing a block of itself. However, when an account violates WP policy (such as WP:CIVIL) and it is known that it is an alternate account then Good Hand, Bad Hand finds that the violating account needs indef blocking - the editor can then use the main account, or close it and request the indef on the alternate account be lifted. This editor chose neither. I would also remind you that incivil behaviour/personal attacks is no justification for violating WP policy. Anyhow, a different sysop has reviewed the matter and decided to lift the block. That is fine by me, it is how things work round here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I appreciate it. --Pixelface (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Haydn

This is classic tendentious editing. Consensus is solidly against you and you still dig the hole for yourself deeper. Just remember what's waiting right at the bottom of the hole if you keep digging. Moreschi (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but I don't know why you think starting a merge discussion is "tendentious editing." I started a discussion to see what the consensus was. WP:OWN is a policy. Nobody owns those articles. And nobody made you "waste 10 minutes of your life" reverting my edits. If you don't think articles like Symphony No. 81 (Haydn) could be summed up in three sentences in the list article, say so on the list talk page. Since a merge appears controversial, I've listed it at WP:PM in order to gain wider input. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it COULD be summed up like that, but almost any article COULD be summed up like that. If you really don't get why your actions are so pointy, there's really no help for you any more. ? Melodia Chaconne ? (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A page being very short is one good reason to merge, see Help:Merging and moving pages#Merging. Starting a merge discussion is not disruption. --Pixelface (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

List of awards won by Million Dollar Baby

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of awards won by Million Dollar Baby, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of awards won by Million Dollar Baby.

40 Days For Life

The result was a keep, thanks for your vote. - Schrandit (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to thank me. You're the one who provided links to the Sacramento Bee and The Guardian. --Pixelface (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Bank Job

Hi. How come you changed the cast list to back above the Plot? I have only ever seen the cast list after the Plot (at the very least). Seeing as most people are not able to discern who actually stars in the film, we now have a cast list on the left and another one in the infobox on the right! Greetings TINYMARK 20:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Cast section was almost at the very bottom of the article[7]. The Plot section was pretty long so I decided to put the Cast section above the Plot section. I've moved the Cast section below the Plot section since you asked. --Pixelface (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I was actually wondering if the was some deeper meaning to it. The plot does seem to be getting too long, but that always happens with a newly released film. I also noticed that you wikified tha date incorrectly. WP:MOSDATE states that the day/month or month/day should be linked when the year is present, which should also be linked. This has to do with the display of the date-so that it displays with the correct punctuation and to the user's preferences, where set. For more info you can look here or in my talk archive. Happy editing TINYMARK 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot about the date style the article was already using (and I forgot about unregistered users reading the page). Thank you for fixing it. Although I don't always wikify the year. --Pixelface (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.

Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lovisa von Burghausen

Lovisa von Burghausen — latest collaboration.

Jack Merridew 14:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
for the Work Assignments Committee

I'm sorry, what is this about? --Pixelface (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A new article; help as you can. Jack Merridew 14:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

List of assault rifles AfD

I have hastily knocked together a sample treatment of an alternative format for the aforementioned page and posted it to the article's talk page. As you have weighed in on the previous version, I would invite your comments on the alternate I am proposing. Do you think this would make the page more worth keeping? Is it worth the effort to redo the whole page? Is the whole concept a lost cause? Inquiring minds want to know. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ? ? ? ? 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Biker Mice from Mars

Regarding your !vote in this discussion, could you please give a rationale behind your "keep"? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. --Pixelface (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Work Assignments Committee

[8] [9] [10] --Jack Merridew 09:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging specifically to derail an AfD is disruption.

While there are no explicit rules requiring one to not merge an article during an AfD, it is generally considered rude, and more to the point your comments here appear to me to indicate a deliberate decision to merge as a way of disrupting the AfD process. Given the recent arbcom case you were involved in, I'd hope you would understand that this is unacceptable. From now on, please limit yourself to merging material once an AfD discussion reaches its conclusion. If I see you disrupting the process again, I will block you for disruption. You are a prolific and valuable contributor, so please don't make this action necessary. Respect the discussion process of your fellow editors, and don't try to short circuit their deliberations just because you are afraid that they will reach a decision that you disagree with. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You know what's rude? Completely ignoring an AFD debate and closing it however you want. Seeing you write "Respect the discussion process of your fellow editors" is laughable. There was no consensus to delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses and there was no consensus to delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles and yet you deleted them both. It reflects poorly on you and poorly on administrators in general.

After seeing your closures of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses, as well as your comments in the ANI thread about merging, in addition to the frivolous ANI thread you brought against me after I removed a {{prod}} tag you put on an article (after you yourself removed a {{prod}} tag earlier from that same article) — I seriously question your ability to act as an administrator. I would expect much more from an editor who has been an admin since September 2005. Although I found the comment by Dmcdevit in your RfA that you don't "really seem to fully understand the Wikipedia idea of consensus" particularly memorable.

Go read WP:MERGE. Merging during an AFD is not disruption. If that were true, nominating an article for deletion in order to prevent an article from being merged would also be disruption. WP:AFD says "Before nominating an AfD...Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." Articles that can be merged into existing articles should not be nominated for deletion. Go read the editing policy, particularly the section titled Preserve information. If several people in an AFD argue for a merge, that's evidence that a merge discussion should have been started before a deletion discussion. I'm not trying to derail any AFDs and your claim that I merged content in "bad faith" is asinine. When I merge something it's because I think that's what's best for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

I suggest you stick to areas you're familiar with and not close any more deletion discussions until you know what you're doing. You should learn how to evaluate the rough consensus during a deletion debate and when there is no consensus the result is keep. If you're going to delete articles according to your own whims and ignore discussions, I'll make sure I keep on merging content during AFDs. Admins are role models for the community and your actions make Wikipedia look bad. You can't block me for merging content into another article. And this has nothing to do with any recent arbcom case. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. Not all merging during an AfD is disruption; I'm saying that you, specifically, have behaved in a disruptive way, and I am informing you that you will be held accountable if you act disruptively in the future. That's all. If you disagree with my AfD closes, I encourage you to bring them up for review at DRV; I'm always happy to have my administrative actions reviewed. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't merge content during an AFD if there has been a merge discussion before then. WP:MERGE and WP:AFD say nothing about merges during AFDs being disruptive. I consider Percy Snoodle's constant replies to everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion more disruptive than anything else. I presume you have already contacted that editor? --Pixelface (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

List of hooligan firms

Hi, sorry to bother you however, I saw that you added this "criteria for inclusion should be specified more clearly in the lead" and just wondering if you have any suggestions/ideas of what could specifically go in the lead? There is the hidden message which states how unsourced firms will be removed of course. I have already said I would expand the lead once the AfD is closed and presuming of course that the result is for it to be kept, so would appreciate any input, thank you. ?Tangerines?·Talk 18:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I see the hidden comment now. It might help if there was a visible message much like that, according to Wikipedia:SAL#Lead and selection criteria. Perhaps something like — The following firms have been identified by reliable sources as "hooligan firms" --Pixelface (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Urantia Book debate

I had no idea this debate was going on. Thanks for the notice. I can contribute to the discussion but there is so much material on the debate page that it will take a little time for me to get through it, so thanks and with a little patience from everyone I can add some comments there. --Richiar (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome for the notice. The person who nominated the article for deletion should have notified you but I saw that they didn't. From the discussion it looks to me that two of the articles you created (and the other two included in the debate) are going to be redirected and protected. But you can still look at previous versions of the article in the article history for any information you may want to merge into the article The Urantia Book. I would wait until the debate is over before merging anything, and make sure you read WP:MERGE. Basically if you copy any text from the redirected article and paste it into the article The Urantia Book, you should use the edit summary "merged content from [[Revelation (The Urantia Book)]]" or "merged content from [[Cosmology (The Urantia Book)]]." so editors know where it came from. If you paste any content into the article The Urantia Book, I'm sure the nominator and many others will scrutinize it so it would help if the material had good sources. If the material comes from The Urantia Book itself, you should supply references like <ref>''The Urantia Book''. p. 107</ref> for example or a link to a specific page on the website. --Pixelface (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)