User talk:Sgeureka/Archive04

Welcome!

Hello, Sgeureka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Tone 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

List of The Outer Limits episodes‎

Explain, please, what are you doing? Why did you removed all articles of TOL episodes, and links to these articles? Krasss (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As explained in the edit summaries, #redirect List of The Outer Limits episodes {{R from merge}} - plot-only article (WP:NOT#PLOT), no apparent WP:NOTABILITY". If an article was merged that was not plot-only but which had apparent notability, then feel free to revert. If you disagree with my assessment, we can discuss it over at WP:AFD, where I doubt that we'll get any other result than a merger (at best). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that all of these articles (from Category:The Outer Limits episodes) had an apparent notability. If you are right, show me, please, the concrete discussion (at WP:AFD) about deletion TOL episodes articles. Krasss (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant I'll be doing AfD if you think that these articles weren't plot-only and had apparent notability. But I'd be greatly surprised if the AfDs would end in anything but a merge and redirect, so why waste everyone's time with bureaucracy. (But if that is what you want, we can certainly do that.) – sgeureka ^t•c 07:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think, we must discuss your idea about further destiny of these pages at WP:AFD. Krasss (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

See you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Galaxy Being. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, the result of discussion is different than you supposed before. Now I had returned most part of links to episodes to List of TOL episodes, - but the original pages are still redirected to this list. I think, you must help in removing of these redirections. Krasss (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC).

I am going to restore the articles and will initiate a proper merge discussion. Give me few days. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing banners via AWB

Have you seen User:Nifboy/AWB, my handy how-to guide? To get it to not follow redirects automatically, there's a checkbox in the options menu at the top called "follow redirects"; make sure it's off. Nifboy (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD on date articles

Just wanted to touch base with you on the fact that 'merge' is considered to be a variant of 'keep'. I understand there may be a reluctance to permanently delete information, but merge is only suitable for certain specific cases. In most other instances, it is usually best to go wholeheartedly for either 'merge' or 'delete' to avoid the no consensus keeps that we see far too often. In any event, a "merge then delete" would be preferable to a "merge or delete", Ohconfucius (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I can leave with either deletion or a merger (deletion is, as noted, my first option though), and I'll go with the majority as long as the "articles" don't exist anymore after the AfD. That's not the way AfD was designed, but I wish it was. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruption

I find it rather odd that you think episodes of Stargate are of upmost notability yet episodes from a British ITC production, yes one of the most notable television producers of the 1960s and 1970s are somehow not. I've put in a great deal of work improving coverage and I have had to sort out these images on many occasions. Then to top it off you come along thinking you are somehow a god of television because you are a project member and place pointless tags on articles to trod on it and then have the cheek to lecture me about "disruption". Try doping something useful with your time and improve existing articles rather than degrading them. You have removed the images which had much value than the ones in the box. If we must have only ONE image I would rather we switched them. Count Blofeld 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you came up with any of these conclusions. I treat all fiction articles the same, and the Stargate articles were in fact the first I got rid off in masses for lack of demonstrated notability. What makes you think that cleanup-tagging articles that violate policies and guidelines doesn't improve wikipedia? – sgeureka ^t•c 20:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

They are not clean up tags. You can place {{expand}} or {{refimprove}} if the articles needs improvement and I wouldn't argue with you. ITC productions such as The Avengers , The Saint and Randall and Hopkirk are genuinely notable in British television. Its not my fault that being from the 1960s there ae not an abundance of sources as there are for episodes of Stargate in the 2000s. By placing notability tags on them it maximises the possibility that they will be deleted and I've spent a lot of time on them which deeply annoys me.

Trust me I often groan at most of the articles we have on Family guy and dreadful episodes of manga and cartoons. Many editors disagree on what wikipedia is and what should be included. I do however find it odd the selection for inclusion at times for some episodes of series which to me would seem quite prominent being deleted and then we have articles on series often little known outside the United States having hundreds of articles on its episodes. Either we acceot articles on TV episodes or we don't. No tradiational encyclopedia would have articles on episodes but wikipedia differs in this respect. By rmeoving the images also it means I am going to be drilled another round of orphaned images. You nmust see from another persective how this is frustrating. Count Blofeld 20:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please believe me when I say that I am fully aware of American bias against non-American fiction; my favorite 1980s TV dramas of my country don't even have main articles on en.wiki. But the reasonable way to deal with plotty non-notability-establishing episode articles is to merge them into episode/season lists (unless someone is able to remove those deficiencies). I started to cleanup Category:Television episodes by series several weeks ago, but the time to AfD or bold-merge is nearly over. The next best alternative after bold-merging is initiating merge proposals; the last alternative is to tag for notability as a cleanup measure and wait for improvement before initiating merge proposals after a few months (if still necessary). With old shows such as Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased), you never know what's notable and if there are still interested editors around, so I chose the last alternative as the safest way. If you can establish notability, great. If not, then rest assured that your show will not be treated any differently than American shows (i.e. merger). Sorry about my using the word "disruptive", but IPs constantly removing notability tags are/were getting to me. I am also sorry about the images; no-one has ever made a peep when I removed unnecessary screenshots from film articles, so I didn't think anyone would care here either (I am still sure though that experienced editors at NFC agree that the non-inofbox screenshots in the R&H(D) articles should be removed.) – sgeureka ^t•c 21:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

They wouldn't care no. Its just images of the actual episode are practically the only thing we have to identify it and help put any information in the article in place. I am one of the most experienced editors of English wikipedia and have had more than my fair share of tiffs over image use and know that as sad as it is two images are not likely to be considered accpetable, such is the fixation with copyright law. I've tried doing some work on German TV series starting some articles like SOKO 5113 but nobody seems interested in expanding them, or the ones that are work on German wikipedia. I'm surprised you aren't more active editing articles on German television series, it is one of the areas that needs the most work I think by the sheer anount missing. I fyou look at it from a world view, I think its probably best that we concentrate on actual TV series and trying to even up world coverage of it. I also find it very concerning that we can have 300 articles on cartoon episodes from the states and have 95% of notable TV programmes missing from countries like Germany and well just about anywhere else non english speaking. Count Blofeld 22:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you aren't more active editing articles on German television series - I haven't watched a single German TV series in ten years for various reasons, and I tend to buy and watch TV series on DVD nowadays (more expensive, but faster than waiting for the first German broadcast, no commercial breaks and OMG non-dubbed), so my familiarity with many new modern national and international TV series is limited. That doesn't stop me from contributing to the odd TV show main article though when I find a good old/new TV show to get obsessed about, as happens about once or twice a year. Maybe a German TV show will be next... – sgeureka ^t•c 23:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe interesting

Hi. Since you did the big merge of the Stargate episodes, you may want to check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elementary School Musical and leave comments. Cheers. --Tone 13:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

August 1, 2003

I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at [1]. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Danke

Thanks for the comment. I should have asked your assistance in the first place. Nächste mal. Eusebeus (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Meine hochgeehrte Freundin! Ich habe ein kleines überstezungsproblem. Könntest Du mir hilfe? Eusebeus (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Gerne. Wo? – sgeureka ^t•c 15:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've put it on my talk page here. Thanks! Eusebeus (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes

Hi. I am completely fine with the redirects. I just checked season 6. On episode really its worth to stay as an article. The one with the Emmy award. All the rest can be redirected. I was just worried because the consensus for one of the worst quality episodes was "merge" and not delete or redirect and I am afraid that redirects will start to get reverted in the "don't redirect unless you fit the information in the list of episodes" logic. I can withdraw if you start a discussion in the talk page of each season and I can support redirect. Right now I was about to go to sleep. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I am not sending more for AfD. I am waiting for your conversions. Have a nice day/evening! Magioladitis (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens RfA

Jclemens' RfA Thankspam

		JClemens' RfA Thanks
		Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hey, would you mind copyediting Meet Kevin Johnson for its FAC? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a look tomorrow night. I was just heading for bed and am not at home tomorrow. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck; wish I'd known about it sooner! In fact, if it weren't for this comment, I wouldn't have even known! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope you make it! Eusebeus (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Garfield & Friends

Hello, I have noticed that you have put all the season one episodes up for deletion. I agree that each one by itself may not be notable. However, couldn't they all be trimmed and merged into one article about season one of Garfield and Friends? That seems like the more reasonable idea, as there is useful information here that shouldn't be deleted. Lorty2 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rouge

It makes sense to have Rouge (film journal) listed at this dab, except I'm unsure which of these two would be more appropriate. What are your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are not sure which writer to choose for the one bluelink? This is an IAR case, and I don't see a problem with mentioning both or none. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Got it ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats.

Congratulations on passing at your RfA! Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. seresin ( ¡? )  02:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ausgezeichnet! Eusebeus (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sgeureka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) My admin log

Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator! Useful Links: • Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide • • Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR • Your admin logs: • blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool and thank you for the trust. I've got a bunch to read up and a bunch to try out [in userspace], so I think it'll take a week or two before you actually see me using the tools. – sgeureka ^t•c 04:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, indeed! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

+1 for the Encyclopaedia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Genuinely surprised

A late congrats on passing your RfA. Liked the cool head in the face of this ridiculous nonsense. Best of luck with the tools. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 11:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I expected your RFA to go down in flames like mine, for much the same reasons. I'm glad it didn't. Maybe I should give Pixelface advance notice of my next pass so that he can write a similar glowing endorsement for me.—Kww(talk) 04:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was prepared for it to go down in flames as well, but I am glad I stuck to Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism and Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas (probably the only way to make it through all the guaranteed bad faith). Besides, any minute that someone spends in obsessing in a (my) RfA instead of planning the next coup to get rid of long-standing [insert fiction policy/guideline X], is a minute well-spent, regardless of the RfA result. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

...And I am aware what's going on at WAF, but they don't seem to need my input just yet to shoot down the new proposal. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

it's not just for show!

Mind if I ask for your first mop-related favour? I extracted the pertinent law-related information from {{PD-textlogo}} but removed the wording stipulating "logos", as they're not exceptional for imagery failing the threshold of originality (see WP:PD#Fonts). Would you mind identically protecting {{PD-text}} as {{PD-textlogo}} already is? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

But you know that it's cruel to use officialese ("pertinent", "stipulating") around non-native speakers, right? :-) User:MBisanz protected the old template as a "high use template" (which isn't the case for the new one yet), and I have no clue yet where page protection should be applied when trolling IPs aren't involved. Please give me a week or two to develop a feeling of confidence in swinging the mop, or I'll risk second-guessing myself so much that I can't sleep tonight. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okie-dokie, that makes sense then. Don't worry man, I dig.  :^) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)