User talk:AnmaFinotera: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:07, 19 May 2010

Nightmare

You may wish to return to Talk:Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy and re-evaluate your position on the article. MichaelQSchmidt has sourced some information for the documentary and would like everyone to review the page again. My opinion remains the same, as everyone on that page is already on A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)#Documentary, with the exception of the IMDb cast list for everyone interviewed. You may feel otherwise, and it would be only right for anyone who has cast an opinion of the previous version of the page to review it and either alter their opinion or reaffirm their choice. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School Rumble

Based on you comment at WT:Anime#A-Class, do you think I should undue the combining of refs I have done? I have already gone through and eliminated as many unnecessary ones as I can.陣内 _Jinnai 10:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would be a good thing. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the policy/guideline that states that they should be like that? I believe that is the only way I would be able to win an argument if I brought it back to an FAC with tons of references after something.陣内 _Jinnai 13:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I'm looking all through stuff and can't find anything explicitly stating it, though it "seems" obvious from all examples always showing just a single ref per ref tag, and there being no explanation on how to do it if it is done. It is also been brought up in other FACs, GANs, and PRs where editors had to undo that kind of grouping before it could pass. I would imagine it would fall under the requirement that citations be clear, which stacked ones generally are not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brought this to attention at WP:Village pump (policy)#Citations.陣内 _Jinnai 14:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May have another BF101

There may be a second repeat vandal working on these articles, or this could just be how BambiFan is attacking them ... this editor keeps changing box-office gross numbers without providing sources, and I think I've seen this type of vandal work before, but I wanted to at least tip you off in case Bambi's back. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...that one I'm not sure of. Might want to do an SPI...could be Bambifan, but I seem to remember another vandal who did nothin gbut that, changing box office grosses and other stuff to introduce vandalism. The pattern seems off to be Bambifan101, though he has hit all of those articles repeatedly before, so a CU seems like a good idea. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case just blocked the user indefinitely for being a vandalism-only account, and my recent experiences with SPI indicate that once that's done, sock investigations are moot points. At least he is stopped, whoever he is/was. Thanks for your quick response! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC) (P.S. I think there is another repeat vandal who just changes B.O. gross numbers for the heck of it.)[reply]

RfPP

Hey, I've left a note for you on WP:RPP. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of small settlements

I saw that you contributed to the discussion at WT:N#Notability of small settlements, so you may be interested in a policy proposal I have made concerning this issue at the Village pump. Regards. Claritas (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd

Who is the 3rd? –xeno^talk 20:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, Jehochman said Dream Weaver not Dreamweaver. Fixing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You had me confused there =) –xeno^talk 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WT:DAB

Look, if you want to complain over getting refactored, that's your call. However, you need to take a step back and realize that I recognize when someone is trying to frame a question to benefit their argument instead of stating it neutrally. I'll assume good faith that you didn't intend to do that, so long as you recognize the simple fact that I didn't alter by an iota your position, instead clarifying the other side of the discussion. Look at what I actually added versus what you originally wrote. To whit, you noted your side of the argument, citing a link to a guideline, and failed to do so with the other side of the argument. This places an undue weight on your side of the argument, implying that your view is correct and has the weight of policy and guidelines behind you, when I specifically have pointed out in discussion that you do not.
Now, you can continue to muddy the waters at WT:DAB with your hurt feelings, or we can both shut up and let other folk weigh in. Your call. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 ::You had me confused there =) –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
+== WT:DAB ==
+Look, if you want to complain over getting refactored, that's your call. However, you need to take a step back and realize that I recognize when someone is trying to frame a question to benefit their argument instead of stating it neutrally. I'll assume good faith that you didn't ''intend'' to do that, so long as you recognize the simple fact that I didn't alter by an iota your position, instead clarifying the other side of the discussion. Look at what I actually added versus what you originally wrote. To whit, you noted your side of the argument, citing a link to a guideline, and failed to do so with the other side of the argument. This places an undue weight on your side of the argument, implying that your view is correct and has the weight of policy and guidelines behind you, when I specifically have pointed out in discussion that you do not.<br>
+Now, you can continue to muddy the waters at WT:DAB with your hurt feelings, or we can both shut up and let other folk weigh in. Your call. - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 23:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)