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.
Trek73
I don't know enough about Begin to answer that, other than that Trek73predates Begin by quite a few years. I wouldn't bother with another AfD of Trek73, as any content matters regarding that article need to be dealt with on its talk page; AfD isn't really the appropriate place for dealing with it (especially as it has already been kept via merge already). The merge was undone by me because it turns out that it is not simply a variant of Star Trek (text game). I would advise you to simply avoid the AfD process in general for a while. Bumm13 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
well....i didnt use ta template for something tht never happened , i felt tht info as needed & as valuable & hence i left a note to the member to not to remove infos .
Hi I am struggling a bit with why you deleted [1] the link to the Latin version of book III of Ockham's Summa Logicae. If you follow the link to any of the chapters you get to places such as here [2] where it is completely obvious it is a primary source. So why does your comment say "That is not a website that appears authoritative or verifiable"? A primary source is what it is. As for verifiable, you can look at the original 13th century text in any reference library and see that the online text matches the other. I originally scanned it in and carefully checked the Latin. As I say, read it through for yourself and see. If we are going to remove links of this kind, why not also remove the links to here [3] which is simply another personal website (this time, to books I and II)? Peter Damian (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I replied on your own talk page. Alastairward (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see RS noticeboard
There is no problem with the MWB link. Please stop reverting. Thank you. Peter Damian (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The link you asked for. Vandenberg believes the link is OK, and gives a number of reasons. E.g. " was an appropriate link, as any website that hosts a copy of public domain texts is acceptable. We should judge it based on its accuracy rather than the URL". Peter Damian (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
VHS article
Hi, thank you for helping out on the VHS article. Unfortunately, the anon is very persistent, and it needs your help to revert his edit. I've further documented the problem in the talk page. I can't revert because it would violate the 3RR rule. Appreciate it! Groink (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
South Park
Kinda wondering... How long will it take? Imaginationland Episode II, for example, was created 11/07 and it still only has 1 source: itself! I'm not invested in deleting it, but it doesn't seem WP is the place for comprehensively cataloguing episodes of a show. (Except Star Trek, of course.) Maybe someone should move these to a South-Park-wiki, or IMDB. Lionelt (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again. CzechOut☎ | ✍ 11:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It might be useful if you could make a contribution to the current trim underway, even if only a few bits at the edge. I think the clearest way a consensus can be shown is for several of us to be working together on it.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Towelie
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a relief that whole back-and-forth with the uncited info pushers is now over on that one. Nightscream (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You're most welcome, I just happened to have it on my watch list and thought I'd drop by. Just brace yourself for when the second half of season 13 kicks off in October. Alastairward (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Although I do understand your concerns, I would like you to reconsider, or remove the entire, totally unsourced, plot section as well. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I watched the episode, and noticed its title was based on "Something Wicked This Way Comes". What's the difference? --Reinoutr (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, I found a published book which backs up the statement and readded it with that as a reliable reference. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Do no revert tag edit on Trek73.
A while ago you put up numerous Trek-game related articles for AfD. In the contentious threads that followed it was pretty clear that your concept of notability was not widely shared, and every one of the AfD's failed after there was widespread agreement that the topics were, in fact, notable.
So now you have taken to placing notability tags on them, instead of AfD. I don't think this is constructive. I am removing the tag again. If you have anything specific to add, something that was not brought up during the AfD, by all means, post it on the discussion page before adding the tag again.
I have responded on your talk page. Alastairward (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
If the article was notable enough to pass AfD then it is, by definition, notable enough to not be tagged. As I stated in the edit log, on the discussion page and here on this page, if you have some new evidence that overturns the arguments that were presented in the AfD, then by all means make that argument and put it up for AfD again. But so far no new evidence has been presented, Hackers is a widely read book, and your edits are in opposition to consensus. You have now re-added the tag twice. If you re-add again you will be blocked for breaking the three revert rule. There are means to escalate this if you wish, you might wish to start here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry my response disappointed you. Please take action via this link first. If you do not get the same answer there, feel free to re-nominate the article for deletion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, reply on your talk page, further on the Trek73 talk page. Alastairward (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have offered you several suggestions on ways to move forward, including the 3rd opinion service, providing additional evidence on the article talk page, or re-nominating if both of those fail. You can avail yourself of these services, or not, at your leisure. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
State atheism v. secular state
It is not enough that the section which is added is sourced, the sources must connect the subject of that section to state atheism; otherwise, it is just WP:SYN. There probably are sources which distinguish state atheism from a "secular state" or an other similar concept. However, I don't think we can just take material which does not even reference atheist states and throw it into the article. Mamalujo (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. I've found some sources that talk about the difference between religious, secular and atheistic states and I may make an addition to the article. One problem is that the term "secular state" is vague. I don't believe that it is a precise term of art in the social sciences, much less in one social science. Thus many states which one source calls secular another would call religious. See my comments on the secular state talk page. The question of whether a state has an established religion is much less vague. Mamalujo (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes there are, the word "spoiler" has the same meaning on Wikipedia that is has
everywhere else.
81.106.196.8 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I have read WP:SPOILER and I don't believe it applies. It says
A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists, and thus may 'spoil' the experience for any reader who learns details of the pl
ot in this way rather than in the work itself.
First the Lore article is not about "a book, feature film, television show or
video game" but rather a character in a franchise which includes books,
television shows and films. Second the spoiler is not about the subject the
article itself covers but about the episode Descent.
Anyone who wants to know what happens at the end of "Descent" can follow the
link which appears in the "Lore" article. In contrast, if we accept that any
Wikipedia article can contain spoilers for any other article (or perhaps even on
topics which are not covered by an article) then it makes Wikipedia unusable.
81.106.196.8 (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I will repeat a version of the above on the article talk page and make an alternative suggestion. 81.106.196.8 (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
ST TAS
Why were the season 1 TAS episode articles "The Pirates of Orion", "The Slaver Weapon" or "The Jihad" all deleted from wikipedia? In their 1998 book, "TrekNavigator:The Ultimate review guide to the entire Trek saga", Mark Altman & Ed Gross call 'The Pirates' an outstanding TAS episode focusing specifically on the Orions. They also recommend the Slaver Weapon as 'one of the best and most literate TAS shows' while the Jihad was described by these authors to be a great TAS episode with a good moral tale.
It is true that G. Roddenberry did not call TAS Star Trek Canon but they were all made and produced by him in the early 1970's and Wikipedia ought to have at least an article on these 3 TAS first season shows....to recognise his work here. I hope you are not throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. Surely wikipedia can restore these 3 season 1 TAS episodes while still keeping Yesteryear. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
No evidence of an attempt to contact any of the dozen of so authors involved in editing this page, no discussion on the talk page about the content removal, no PROD or AfD, or evidence of any other procedure being followed. The only justification offered is a discussion between two authors on a talk page where one said "go for it". Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'll restore a few of the season 1 TAS articles soon (not all of them) and add a few quotes from the Altman & Gross book for them. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Leoboudv, I certainly don't own the articles, if you can dig up reviews, influences etc, add them, it would be most welcome.
Maury, did you take even a minute to check the actual articles themselves? They consist of plot, easily scrubbed trivia and a lot of info boxes, what does the reader gain from this layout? Please don't just enter every discussion by bombarding other users with a whole host of "procedures", you really don't appear to care in this case for the actual content of the articles at all. Alastairward (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
"Be bold" is an invitation to improve things, not remove them. Stubs are an important part of the Wikipedia, as they act as an invitation for further improvement. There's plenty of studies that demonstrate a bad article leads to a better one much faster than no article at all. If the article has the barest hint of quality, or even the slightest hint that it might be able to, then I err on the side of caution and either leave it alone, or improve it myself. I would argue that The Slaver Weapon is a topic that could be brought to B-quality with a little effort - its a relatively famous episode written by an author who was, at that time, a major up-and-comer.
I'll say it again: deletion is an action of last resort. Please stop accusing me of bad faith editing, glass houses and all. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that deletion is an action of last resort but there should also be some balance here as Alastairward writes. A few of the TAS wikipedia episode articles had too much trivia and no verifiable sources or analysis. Anyway, I've dug up some critical commentary and verifiable references for the better TAS episodes. (don't have more free time here) and avoided the awful TAS shows like 'The Infinite Vulcan' like the plaque. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Leoboudv, thanks for your input. I have a few Trek books lying around the house, TAS is given brief mention in them. I guess they're just not taken as seriously, given the format. But, if you find something I've not found myself, please let us know.
Maury, I didn't AfD or Prod the articles, so what are you talking about deletion for? Don't you think I have access to Google or that as a fan I have a few books lying around the house on the subject? Please don't assume that something must be notable simply because you think it. Niven may have been an up and comer at the time, but that was many years ago, don't you think some reliable sources have shown some significant interest by now on the subject. Note that I didn't redirect Yesteryear. Investigating, I found that it had influence beyond critical reviews and so arguably deserved an article of it's own. Alastairward (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Its not a problem at all. We'll I have to go to bed as its 2:48 AM in Vancouver but it was nice to give verifiable sources for some of the TAS articles. That's what too many Wikipedia articles lack sadly. (Now I mostly edit on WikiCommons and deal with copyvios though I have edited a lot in the past year on Ancient Egypt related articles) I personally have to agree with Altman/Gross & David Gerrold here that TAS was surely canonical since Roddenberry & DC Fontana edited the show's scripts and were paid a salary to make them. They were clearly in charge of its production. But I suppose Roddenberry did not take Star Trek seriously in cartoons which is understandable due to Filmation's sometimes poor production values although many of TAS' scripts were quite mature. Some TAS shows were plain bad but others were quite good or funny overall. In the end its ironic that TAS was the first Trek series to win an Emmy and yet today due to Roddenberry's Canon rule, most Trek book writers can only briefly mention it or just ignore it altogether. At least Altman & Gross tackle TAS on its own terms and give its episodes separate reviews...which is nice. Who knew that the holodeck first appeared in the TAS 'The Practical Joker' as the rec room? As Spock would say: 'Fascinating.' Thank You sir, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This is what I'm talking about. Fixing this article was a simple exercise, and I believe improves the quality of the Wikipedia. Removing it, because it's current state was sub-par, does the reverse. Hopefully it will be DYK'ed, but I'm not entirely happy with my hook. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Maury, as I noted elsewhere, I had scoured what books I had to hand and tried the usual online searches and could find little to nothing. Are you suggesting that the same can be done for the rest for these articles?
It's an assumption of bad faith to suggest that these articles were deleted, or that anyone suggesting deletion is not searching for sources. Nothing was removed, I just redirected them so that the content that was available at the time (the plot basically) could be viewed from within a table. This made it so much easier to browse through the scant information available, that was the improvement I was making to the article. Alastairward (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It's an assumption of bad faith to claim that I had no interest in these articles, which you did above. I have reverted your extensive deletions of sourced material in the article. If you feel that the subjects in question do not fit in the article, make your argument on the talk page. I personally feel that the history of Borderlands, developed from the script, is completely on-topic. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Where did I say you had no interest in this article? Alastairward (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Dead Celebrities
Well, it seems there are two for the list's inclusion, and two against it (you and I). I'd would suggest requesting Third Opinion, and see what happens then. Nightscream (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
South Park
You've been rightfully braving the "references to popular culture" and "trivia" crowds (among other things) on articles related to South Park for a good while now. Would you consider officially joining the South Park WikiProject? Hope to see your continued help with the articles in the future, either way. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't wait until I have time to make more significant edits myself. Hope to see you aboard one day. Thanks for all your help lately. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
"Edit Warring" charge
I've moved the talk page entry to the article page since thats where such a thing should have bee posted if you felt there was edit warring going on in the article (which there wasn't). The "other user" you mentioned actually placed the material back in the article while I checked for references. I did find out (Star Trek Compendium) and have asked for 3rd opinions as you suggested. As far as 'edit warring", there was none that I saw. -OberRanks (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
P.S.- Feel free to check out my website. We're always looking for new players and avid Star Trek fans are always welcome. -OberRanks (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
3RR reporting
Hi, for reports take this position, when a user seems to be warring and reaches either 3 reverts or 1RR you should warn them on their talkpage a friendly note is enough (you didn't do that yesterday) and then if they revert again it is best to notify them that they have in your opinion broken the 3rr and ask them/give them the opportunity to self revert the edit...and then after giving the user these opportunities, if the user then does not self revert...then it is time to report them. I missed all these things yesterday due to my beer goggles or I would not have commented. If you give users a bit more rope then you will not need to make many reports and the ones you do will be worthwhile reports. Regards Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Dances with Smurfs
Hello again. As someone who's been making contributions to the "Dances with Wolves" article and its talk page recently, I was wondering if you would want to offer a third opinion regarding this discussion, because I think it might help prevent a potential edit war. Eeek, as I was writing this one of my edits was reverted for the 4th time in 3 hours. - SoSaysChappy(talk) 09:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Film plot summaries
This is a response to your changes on High_Plains_Drifter. According to How_to_write_a_plot_summary#How_to_begin, a plot summary should start with a single sentence that summarizes the entire story. This is the sentence you moved from the plot section to the lead. If you have enough authority to change wikipedia policy, please update How_to_write_a_plot_summary and/or WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines accordingly. I would like to contribute to film pages correctly.
--Codrdan (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
> please [link to advice] correctly.
Sorry about that. Can you help me with the issue I asked about? It seems to me that a one-sentence summary should be near the top of a section, and How to begin a plot summary suggests that it should be in the Plot section.
I apologise if my tone wasn't friendly enough for you, Alastair. Have a nice day. --Codrdan (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Mick
Hi Alistair, I had a look,only a couple of weeks ago, he is in danger with his history of a lengthy block, if he survives this I will point it out to him in a strong way, he can not continue in this manner, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
RFC on whether the Channel Islands are a part of the British Isles
Following from a discussion you were a participant in on Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom, a (limited) RFC has been opened inviting comments on whether the Channel Islands should be treated as part of the British Isles on Wikipedia. All views are welcome here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Plot intros
Hi Alistair. This is a response to your restoration of the plot introduction of High Plains Drifter. I guess I should have asked you about this earlier. In
Initial summary discussion and the 14:05, 17 November edit of How to begin a plot summary,User:Collectonian has been saying the plot intro should be only in the lead section, so maybe that should be discussed some more. Also, Plot spoilers says we shouldn't make spoilers so obvious they ruin the reader's experience of the film. The spoiler is repeated later in the summary, and I wrote the text myself, so I was just fixing what I thought was my own mistake. Take care. —Codrdan (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Gettting personal
Would you consider removing the reference to the George Lazenby dispute from your latest reply to me? It's a rather uncalled-for attempt at trying to make me look like some kind of habitual WP:V-violator, and you're presenting it as though I was admonished by an authority rather than an involved party in a much larger dispute. Nightscream was having disagreeing with others besides me, and it was about something a lot more basic than this.
In short, try to stick to discussing the actual issue at hand instead of getting personal already in the second reply.
Administrators are neither civility arbitrators nor police officers. If you get a complaint about a post, you should really address it yourself either by refactoring or explaining yourself. We're supposed to work this out as editors of equal standing, remember? I still intend to reply, but I thought I'd give you a chance to avoid getting personal with another editor so soon into a dispute.
I notice that you seem to be a South Park regular, especially when it comes to "braving the 'references to popular culture' and 'trivia' crowds". I understand the need to keep "this kinda sorta reminds of that thing I saw the other day"-claims and trivia orgies at bay, but this is clearly not just some homebrew guesswork. I'm not prone to wild speculation about pop culture and I would appreciate if you didn't give me empty routine replies without any acknowledgement of any opinion except your own. It's rather condescending behavior towards a fellow editor and in this case it's certainly not improving the article.
If you feel I am singling you out for unwarranted behaviour, I suggest that you make a request for comment or ask an administrator to get involved. I know that I have done nothing on the article we both edited that is wrong or uncivil, if you disagree then you should definitely have someone in authority take action against me. Until, then I will continue to edit as I have. Alastairward (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You're completely misunderstanding things. Citing policy doesn't mean that your course of action is automatically just. If anything, it doesn't mean you're free to reply to literally everything with "WP:V says I'm right, so I will continue reverting 'til the cows come home". And this notion that reverting a fellow editor on every detail you don't personally disagree with is okay as long as you're not explicitly policed is bordering obstruction. You're basically asking for me to escalate the dispute rather than engage in civil discussion. That's not uncivil in the sense of hurling obscenities at me, but I find it disrespectful and quite obstinate. It feels as if you simply can't be bothered with dialog. I've concluded what I want to say to you directly, however, so let's keep the rest of the discussion over at the talkpage.
If you do reply, please do so here. The thread should be kept together so that it's easier to follow.
I see you have now decided to stop edit warring and are not adding unverified material to that article, I hope it will stay that way. Alastairward (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't entirely civil, you know. I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but replies like that don't exactly smooth things over. It felt more like a pat on the head followed by a subtle threat. I should point out that you're quite good at the revert game yourself, even with stuff you haven't tried to discuss or have reasons to remove.[4][5] If you don't engage in exchanges with others beyond standard "go read this policy and stop disrupting the article"-type of answers, you should really try to avoid wholesale reverts altogether; please make sure you're not throwing out uncontroversial additions. And when you add condescending comments like the one above, you're likely to get people even more annoyed.
The third opinion you solicited would seem to agree with my point of view, I hope this will be our last battlefield. Again, if you feel I am singling you out for uncivil behaviour, you should report me. Alastairward (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It's saying the same thing I've been saying all along, actually: find a reference or deal with a fact tag. It's also telling you that you shouldn't remove information you don't genuinely doubt.
I am not going to report you, though. I'm just asking for more sensible discussion and less rigid argumentation. If you think there are still problems, do the reporting yourself.
Orphaned non-free image File:Spock and Dr Jones.PNG
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Spock and Dr Jones.PNG. 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 03:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Pre-Stonewall TV list
Hostile and untrue comments like "Previous edits show you don't actually know what the plots are!" do not contribute anything useful. Episodes were removed from the list not because I didn't know the plots. They were removed because several people decided they weren't LGBT enough. If you have an issue with one or more of the episodes on the list, either bring them up on the talk page or, you know, do a little research on your own instead of wandering onto an article for which you've done nothing and slapping a tag on it. Otto4711 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Request for look at "Meddler" synopsis and comment
Alastairward,
May I impose on you to look at User:Refrigerator Heaven/Sandbox where I'm drafting my first article? I could use some constructive comments on the synopsis for "Meddler" including application of "verifiability" for something of this nature. Frankly, I just wrote something non-spoilerish based on my reading and interpretation of it with a vague nod to PKD's 1980 comment. A one sentence synopsis in a bibliography is the only reference I can think of to refer to offhand and don't see how it's any more authoritative, just addresses less though I geuss I could reference it for some portion of a sentence. I think what I've written is reasonably straightforward and uncontroversial (for a PKD story and viewing by PKD fans) without giving up the "twists" or looking at it too shallowly. But what do I know? <g>
Information about Wickipedia formatting for when it's a finished article and ready to be put in the Wickipedia proper should be helpful also. I've never edited anything here that didn't already exist and have the basic formatting already in place if that doesn't just insert itself semi-magically. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Trying this Talkback thing out as discussions scattered between pages are hard for me to follow so I wanted to see if it worked. There really is a message but I thought I should mention why I'm using the Talkback in case it's not considered best manners. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not "original research" to point out to the reader where a picture is in the article, especially since someone saw fit to shrink that picture to about the size of a postage stamp. Arguably a little patronizing, but not OR. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
South Park edits
My belief is to bring them up to current standards. Afro (Not a Talk Page) - Afkatk 00:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Enterprise auto destruct codes and avoiding edit wars
Wikipedia guidelines don't actually forbid the inclusion of trivia, if it is relevant to the topic. Whether this particular bit of trivia is relevant is probably debated by Trekkies more obsessive than either of us, but since we both know that this information will eventually be re-added by somebody every time it's deleted, I was just trying to integrate it into the body of the article, to avoid one of those clunky and non-encyclopedic trivia sections. You mention good faith and I don't question yours, but I should warn you that the speed with which you deleted this information not once but twice would probably be interpreted by many as starting an aggressive edit war. I personally don't take it that way, but I see you've had conflict before, so I thought I should give you advice on how to possibly avoid it in the future; you might be better off either providing a more detailed explanation for your deletes and reverts, or giving the article more time to "sit there" with its recent change (as long as it's not outright destructive) and thus give the previous editor at least an illusion that the validity of his changes have been fairly considered. I'm not trying to advise you on any specific Wiki policy, just on avoiding conflict. Minaker (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the note. I have scrubbed a lot of trivia from Star Trek and South Park articles, that and a lot of uncited content. It's been for the best in the long run, I have had a few suggestions that it was done in an "aggressive" manner, but then the changes have mostly stuck. Either that or some carefully place fact tags have sat for many months unaddressed. Alastairward (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Templating Peter
It's poor form to use uw templates on experienced users, even if they are appropriate to the situation. Gigs (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikiquette alert
I'm concerned about the lack of progress in our exchanges with the BBB-article. I feel like you have been engaging in rather belligerent behavior towards me and that your attitude toward me is clouding your otherwise good judgment. I've brought the issue up at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Alastairward and I invite you to discuss the issue. I'm hoping that this way we'll be able to clear the air and continue with constructive editing instead of just constantly reverting one another.
sincerely, PeterIsotalo 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Fields of Glory
I have replied both on the FoG discussion page (about reviews and game genre classifications), and on my own talk page (about WP policies on computer and video games). Miqademus (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Forbidden Planet
Appreciate the intervention - I'm old in years but new to this as you can tell. I've just fathomed the "Show Preview" button and so won't trouble editing histories with every little indecision from now on. However, my latest addition is merely factual and clears up quite a common enquiry for literature students looking at this - neither paragraph can be called spurious cultural referencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeromeJosephKennedy (talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but there should be a cite to back up anything added to Wikipedia. I found one that cited the basic source for the plot of the film, it replaced an existing cite in the introductory paragraph. Perhaps you might know of one that went further and broke it down a little more into how the characters from each correspond to each other? Alastairward (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
List of terrorist incidents, 2009
This needs keeping an eye on, William S Saturn is up to his old trick re Fort Hood again. O Fenian (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Butters' Own Episode
I do not understand why you removed my edits and citations to the episode. What does "OR" stand for? After discussing with other wiki editors it was agreed that the information was relevant and would be fine as long as I cited it. I included an outside source with an explanation of the Susan Smith and her crimes. In the Susan Smith wiki article this South Park episode is mentioned as a direct reference. One of the Wiki issues with this episode is its lack of citations. I included a citation section and used a citation. This is to improve the article and make it compliant.
Merin Sun (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
re: LA Time and role of citation. The citation is to verify the specifics of the Sarah Smith case and to provide an outside source of information not found in the related Wikipedia article. You can state a comparison without citation, especially one as obvious as Southpark was making, but as some people may not be aware of the connection, the connection was stated in the article with citations pointing to the specific case. It's like writing an article saying how a person can walk through a door arch and then citing an article about door frames being 32in wide. The citation doesn't make the connection, it's just providing specifics. Merin Sun (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Quote box fiasco
Hey Alastairward. Would you mind weighing in on the discussion at Talk:Sexual Healing (South Park) regarding the quote box (which has been removed). I've made my points, so has the objector, and frankly, I've already wasted too much energy on what is ultimately a trivial matter. I'd much rather get a WP:CONSENSUS developed than keep going back and forth with him, so your thoughts would be much appreciated. — HunterKahn 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Country of the UK
Hi, I'd just thought I drop you a line. I've replied on the Countries of the UK article but I won't be replying there any further. If you want to reply to me about that topic or for any other reason drop a line on my talk page. Thanks, --RA (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Transcendence (video game), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transcendence (video game). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ReykYO! 10:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Based on your arrival at Ranks and insignia of the Schutzstaffel, its become pretty obvious you are reviewing my edit contributions and following me to other articles. It is especially disturbing that you are now reverting my edits to a German-SS article which I have edited for months as "vandalism". I've asked other editors to look at the situation as I think what you are doing constitutes Wiki-hounding. The thread can be found here. -OberRanks (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
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.
