User talk:Roses2at

Welcome!

Hello, Roses2at, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Iceglass (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open All Hours

Let me deal with this first. We get a lot of editors here whose first language is not English, but edit articles as best they can, and we should assume good faith with these editors, because they are trying to improve Wikipedia. There is nothing to stop you keeping an article in your watchlist and correcting any obvious mistakes you see, both for language and verifiability. Remember that they see foreign television programmes in their own country, either dubbed or subtitled into their own language, and may edit on that basis. Don't feel afraid to tidy up language which appears to be barbaric; it probably isn't. Drop me a line if you have any particular concerns. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your second post - surely it has to be that different episodes of a TV series (whatever it is) have notability value? Roses2at (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, please forgive me for moving things around so that related topics can be kept together; I agree that although a TV series may be notable in itself, individual episodes of it may not be, and Fawlty Towers is a good example of this. But I apologise if I misread your post as solely referring to the non-native English speaker who has edited the Open All Hours articles. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright about moving things around - I'm a newbie here so I prefer that someone experienced puts everything in the right place.

Are you saying that the notability guidlines prefer that individual episodes of a series are not given separate pages, but lumped together in one page eg 26 episodes of OAH all on the same one?? That's one hell of a long page. Why???? Is there some sort of memory restriction on the number of pages Wiki can handle? I don't understand the logic of this. (I see the FT page has been done like this, but I don't see the point of it. The summaries are far too short and not particularly useful IMHO. Gotta go, it's getting late - catch up with this tomorrow. Roses2at (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines with respect to episodes within a series are no different from general notability guidelines, e.g. that there must be independent, multiple, reliable sources making an episode of a series notable in itself rather than the series; this is a particular application of the policy that notability is not inherited. For example, Kirk Douglas is a noted actor; so is Michael Douglas. But if Michael Douglas had not had a successful movie career in his own right, the mere fact that he is Kirk Douglas's son would not make him notable. Same with individual episodes of a series. That's why I cited Fawlty Towers. Indeed, some series are notable in themselves, such as Between the Lines, but no individual episode is; that's why there exist such articles as

Between the Lines Episode Guide. It's nothing to do with resources, considering the waste that occurs simply because of vandalism- every change to an article requires a new entry in at least one database table, and since Wikipedia never seems to discard any data due to the requirements of the GFDL, the thing just keeps on growing, ultimately beyond any rational control. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of articles

A lot of newly-created articles do not initially have what it takes to make, eventually, a worthy article. This does not mean that they should be deleted straight away. For most new articles, the principal failure in my experience is that they do not state why their subject is notable; other reasons are that they are obvious nonsense, meant only to attack a living person, or are detected as a breach of somebody else's copyright, all of which are big no-no's on Wikipedia. However, when your articles were nominated for deletion, a tag would have been placed on them saying why; and you then get a chance to add the {{hangon}} tag and argue your case before the article is actually deleted. Without titles of your deleted articles, I cannot tell if there was any merit in them, because i am not an Admin and cannot view deleted pages. It is always open to you to ask any admin to undelete your article and copy it to your workspace (i.e. a sandbox in your user space) so you can get it up to a basic level of acceptance. Hope that helps, drop me a note if you need any more help. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your first post - you've completely misintrepreted what I wanted to say. I have no beef with the person who originally wrote the article. My problem is with one of the editors user:TTN who has just come along and deleted all my hard work (and that of others who've made contributions). (I have reason to believe that he/she is a native speaker.)Roses2at (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept there are current issues with some of [[User::TTN]]'s edits, and they are being dealt with elsewhere. But I suspect that what has done is to redirect your, and other editors' hard work, to a parent article, and without consensus. What you need to do then is to raise the issue at a deletion review and seek community consensus to restore your articles; but in doing this, you will have to make a case for the redirected articles to be worthy of standing on their own merits. Hope that helps. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, when I figure out how to do the deletion review thing I will. It seem to me that User:TTN has not put them into a parent article, because all the links in the main OAH page to these individual episodes are gone too.

It's just a bit upsetting for me who's only been an editing member for a few hours to have their work deleted. Could I hold the record for the shortest ever serving Wikipedia editor??

Roses2at (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. I've seen vandal-only accounts created and blocked indefinitely within six minutes. As for good-faith editors, it tends to take a little longer to become disillusioned with the bureaucracy, and some have given up within an hour. But then, they probably have never tried to learn how to drive a car properly either, which is the analogy I'd use. But don't despair; I'm sure you will find that everything here is not nasty all the time; it just seems to be right now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Roses2at, as you are familiar with the topic and (very funny) show, individual episodes may be recreated if 3rd party sources note them as significant. Given the standard and high esteem much of Ronnie Barker's work is held, this may not actually be too hard. I urge you if you do have 3rd party refs (books etc. which highlight individual episodes, then these can be recreated from the article history then. I myself have been trying to add reference material from what I have at home - the shame is there is a huge amount out there which unfortunately cannot be accessed readily by sitting in front of a keyboard (and its 35C and stinking humid here which is a powerful disincentive for me to try) - thus to maintain a collaborative and constructive approach, finding material is great. If you need a hand at the time for deleted material, there are a number of admins who have offered to retrieve deleted material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 02:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roses2at - Those articles on episodes were not actually deleted by TTN; they were redirected. Your work is still there, it just isn't on display right now. I don't edit articles on TV episodes much, nor do I know that show, so I don't have any very specific advice for you. In general, two things you can do are to find references for those articles, and try to build a consensus with other editors that the redirects should be reverted. Cardamon (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing the versions of the articles that you worked on

Thank you for putting all that work into the articles, and I'm sorry that your initial contributions to Wikipedia were redirected. It's always unfortunate when someone's first experience in editing Wikipedia is a disappointing one.

Maybe you know this already, but you can still view the versions of the articles that you edited. I put instructions how to do that in my reply to you here on the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't really want to get involved because I think it's all petty and a bit of a waste of many people's valuable time, but please tell me how I can make a statement on the RfA page you referred me to.

Roses2at (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) 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 [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]