Jump to content

User talk:TTN/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:TTN

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TTN (talk | contribs) at 23:02, 23 November 2007 (→‎Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives
  1. June 2006 to September 2006
  2. September 2006 to January 2007
  3. January 2007 to April 2007
  4. April 2007 to May 2007
  5. May 2007 to June 2007
  6. June 2007
  7. June 2007 to July 2007
  8. August 2007
  9. September 2007 to October 2007

Married with children episodes category

Hi there - my understanding of the conventions of Category:Television episodes by series is that episodes should be categorized by show there, not in the parent category of Category:Television episodes. That way, the episodes can more easily be found when looking through Category:Television episodes by series. Ordinarily small categories are to be avoided, I entirely agree, but I think that this situation is an exception to WP:OCAT#Small with no potential for growth. Any thoughts? Regards, BencherliteTalk 01:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the MwC category again, the list of episodes article would fit into the episodes category as well. Plus it's not as though there is no possibility of expansion of the category: further articles may yet be written about other episodes. BencherliteTalk 01:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
There will be no need for thirty small categories. That whole category will eventually be pared down to around five to ten series with more than ten episodes, so any others will be one to three episodes at most. It will be just as easy to use the main category, and the list category to find search through them. The chance for more episodes is rather slim at this point (the previous articles were redirected, and only a couple showed potential). If it does get to that point, the category can be recreated. TTN 01:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, you seem to be doing a lot of editing in the field of TV episodes, so I'm perfectly happy to let you get on with it. I keep thinking that I've seen some useful comments one way or the other at WP:CFD recently, so I may have a dig around and see what I can find, for my own reference. Do you happen to recall any such discussions? Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, you can reinstate the speedy tag on the MwC episodes category. Regards, BencherliteTalk 01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Found something, anyway. At this discussion, the eponymous category was deleted, with comments that episodes of a TV show X don't belong in an eponymous category X but in a category of X episodes. Just a thought. BencherliteTalk 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
With that many episodes (and the fact that the category was useless), it makes sense, but this is just two articles for one category. TTN 01:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be helpful...

if you annotated the message that you leave on "list of episode" article talk pages to state that other users would be responsible for merging any plot information into the list? Also that in most cases this information can be obtained from the history of the redirected episode articles? I don't mind doing this in a few cases, but I don't have time to do them all. Hewinsj 18:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll probably be a good idea to do that in the future. TTN 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again; just wanted to make sure of this:

TTN, you did say that there were issues with those episode articles I did for Iggy Arbuckle, which made them unsuitable for Wikipedia, right? And another user, in the debate over their fates, said that a few paragraphs in the episode page would be sufficient for info-giving, right? Well, at the bottom of the Iggy Arbuckle article, there is a list of the episodes; and in there I've put much of the info that was originally in the individual articles. I plan on doing that for the other episodes mentioned as well. You don't hold anything against that, do you? You aren't going to go and erase all of that, are you? (Begins to shake nervously.) Wilhelmina Will 00:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

3rd Rock from the Sun Episodes

I am just giving you a heads up that I am going to revert your changes to the 3rd Rock from the Sun articles. You are flat wrong that the redirect took place because of the discussion. The discussion was to keep and not redirect, so per the discussion, I will be reverting your edit. However, before I do so, I will give you opportunity to show me that, outside of your personal interpretation, the community wants this. I will not be backing down on this, so be prepared to bring support. Nor am I trying to be disruptive, however, per the discussion of the editors, your interpretative changes were not warranted and will be reverted. I will give you a few days, however I will also be reading this post to see if the community backs you and your interpretations. This is not an attack, but a strong disagreement on how you are interpreting things. In good nature, but a disagreement of your actions. --Maniwar (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is global (policies and guidelines), not local. As you failed to show any way for them to meet the policies and guidelines, the opinions presented were irrelevant. If you must have numbers, there are plenty of people that feel the same way as I do, so we can always take that route. Seriously, why don't you do something productive with your editing time like bring the main article to featured article status or the episode list to featured list status? Fighting to keep four very substandard articles is quite silly. TTN 22:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Be careful, I will report you for 3RR violation. You must understand, unlike everyone else, i will not back down from your reverting your interpretation. I do not see the community accepting or wanting your interpretation. I will not attack you and I do respect you for doing something you believe in, but know, that unless the community supports your interpretation you will not win here. Save yourself some frustration and valuable time and move on. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read over WP:3RR, especially the nut shell. Anyways, I'm sure you'll back down before I do. TTN 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs

Hi, in the past I believe I have called you names over your incessant diatrabe against TV show articles, and for that I would like to apologise. I have seen what has been done to articles such as Allison Cameron and I support the goal. However, I question your tactics. I'm sure you're bored with having the same argument over and over, but every time you tell a sub-community that it needs to change, you do it in a very confrontational way, which doesn't much help matters. You go in and essentially say "I don't care what you think, I'm going to do this anyway." I concur that the end result is worth fighting for, but it would be better if it were reasoned for. mattbuck 00:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not confrontational, things just don't work out. It's one out of ten times that the group of users actually tries to improve the articles themselves rather than me having to force them. Otherwise, they feel that they can just "overrule" policies and guidelines with their own numbers. There is no reasoning with that point of view. TTN 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I beg to differ. When I merged two divisions of the Wikipedia: Manual of Style-something.... articles into the main article, I mentioned that I was sorry if anyone had any issues with it, or if there was any notable information lost. I then said that if anyone wished to argue with me on it, then feel free to do so on my talk page. I am also polite to the users who give "inappropriate appraisal", as I like to call it. For instance, one user, in Spike (from the Land Before Time)'s article, mentioned that it was a great movie. While I agreed with them on that, I mentioned that it is not appropriate to say things like that in a seriously-focused encyclopedia like this one here. I even suggested to them where I would look if I wanted to voice my opinion on such things. It's how the women in my family have handled matters in similar circumstances for generations; I'm only trying to carry this legacy onwards. Wilhelmina Will 21:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that act illigal in Wikipedia?

When that robot warned you about the image you uploaded, you removed his comment. You've told me so yourself: Things like deletion debates, or warnings for anything involved with your edits, are illegal in Wikipedia. Be careful!!! Wilhelmina Will 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, users may remove anything that they would like from their own talk pages. The bot message is just a general space-wasting spam message anyways. TTN 21:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Drawn Together

Please desist from redirecting contrary to consensus. It is quite clear that consensus has been established in this discussion, based on reasoned argument. There is no justification for you ignoring the discussion which has taken place, within the normal framework of Wikipedia policy. Please also familiarise yourself with WP:OWN. Thanks, DWaterson 23:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. I'm afraid I'm going to ignore all rules in this case, given that there is clear consensus against your preferred result after over a month of discussion. Had this been an AFD and not a merge discussion, we could have avoided this sort of dispute easily through admin closure. However, as both of us have been involved in the discussion, in all good faith I suggest we both withdraw from any further involvement in proposals to merge or redirect these articles in order to avoid the appearance of sour grapes. DWaterson 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your further reply. I apologise for my slow response. Firstly, of course, WP:IAR applies in all circumstances where mindless devotion to written instructions is defeating our common objective of building an encyclopadia. Secondly, yes - we can all cite policy willy-nilly. But your continued assertion that policy has been wilfully ignored by contributors to the lengthy discussion - and therefore you can simply disregard clear consensus - simply doesn't wash. Finally, your comment that, "These will be redirected unless you provide the information to please them or we can just place each single article up for deletion, one at a time over a few months" sounds like a provocative threat to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by gaming the system. I hope I have misinterpreted your comment, but "placing each single article up for deletion, one at a time over a few months" would be a most inappropriate method of generating consensus. I hope you choose not to go ahead with your assertion that you will "just go [..] ahead and redirect them when I get the chance", contrary to consensus, as this will no doubt simply end up in an unproductive content dispute/revert war of the kind I have no interest in engaging in. I'm optimistic that you'll see that threatening to redirect contrary to consensus is not a productive way to work with others in order to build the encyclopaedia, but I see from other editors' comments on your talk page that you have rather long form on this sort of behaviour :-/ Cheers, DWaterson 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hi TTN, sure I think that's fine if we can get it to stick. No-one responded to my suggestion for an arb case, so we might as well try again. Let Jack know so we can, as required, keep up a vigil aginst any committed reverters who are drawn from the woodwork. I'll follow it as well of course. Eusebeus 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Yo! Per your previous comment, I've started in on the Farscape stuff. Can you keep an eye out? If we are both diligent we may be able to get the point across. How many times do these guys need to be slapped down at AN/I before they'll learn? Eusebeus 18:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Will do. TTN 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Since your blankness seems to mean yes...

Wilhelmina Will has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for not removing the episode description paragraphs from the main Iggy Arbuckle page! Wilhelmina Will 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What the hell have you done?

Way to ruin the Drawn Together entry. Now I lose all the fun of the trivia, obscure references and animation cameos that are one of the reasons the show is written and drawn the way that it is in the first place. I thank you for adding to the mangled, Phantom-of-the-Opera-burnt-face reputation that is Wikipedia on the Internet. Now if you'll excuse me, Uncyclopedia is calling me on my cell phone and I'm pretty sure it's about making a Drawn Together parody entry. --Iwriteu 05:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Please put whatever you erased back in, or else I'll have to eat this cookie myself. Wilhelmina Will 05:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

TTN did nothing, actually. He proposed a merger; the discussion has not been closed as of yet. Someone attempted to merge the entire episode article into the list, but has since been reverted. TTN you need a large sign akin to Betacommand listing your standard replies. Save lots of time. — Soleil (formerly I) 05:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case...

Wilhelmina Will has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'll give you a total of two cookies if you call off that merging discussion, TTN. Two cookies! How can you turn down an offer like that? Wilhelmina Will 05:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop wiping Billy & Mandy's Big Boogie Adventure

You aren't discussing anything with us at all on the matter and what you're doing looks like and is about as helpful as vandalism. Besides that, the discussion/agreement you say is on the list talk page isn't there. If you want to make any major changes to an article, please talk with people about it beforehand instead of just getting rid of all the content and ignoring/blanking us and having revert wars.

Thanks. *Still Calico 15:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a merge tag back in June or July that lead to this this discussion. TTN 15:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't quite follow. There is nothing there about merging the movie article - just the individual episodes. That's a completely different kettle of fish. *Still Calico 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The merge tag was placed in that article, and it was pointed out that all of the articles in the category were going to go. If you want to keep this article, you need to find commentary, reviews, and other things like that from official sources, and apply them to the article. TTN 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually no. You need to show that they probably don't exist.Genisock2 14:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Uh, how do you prove that something doesn't exist? You can show that it is unlikely, but someone can always claim that it exists. That is why the burden of proof is on those wanting to keep the articles. TTN 15:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I said probably doesn't exist. In this case a search of google news and a major libiary index (congress or british say) would probably surfice.Geni 16:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Now, why exactly should I be the one to search through for sources for many unrelated articles? It is up to those that would like to see the articles flourish. And in this case, why are you even arguing? These are minor video game characters from games that have a hard time establishing themselves. TTN 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You should be the one because you want to make a major change to them. Generaly not a good idea to do that if you don't know anything about the subject.Geni 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And yes, it would be nice of me to do so, but these articles should not have been created in the first place anyways, and again, it is up to those that want to keep the articles. TTN 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
No it is up to you.Geni 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:List of Paper Mario series characters

Seeing as nothing has happened with it, will you be fine if the actual article is redirected at this point? We can leave a hidden message to work on it at your sandbox. If it is brought up to our standards, it can come back. TTN 17:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Yeah, please go ahead and do that. I wasn't able to spend a lot of time finding sources for it right after our discussion and then (honestly) I sort of forgot about it. I was also hoping Czarbender (creator and strong supporter of the article) would have done more to add sources, but only added a few sources to the main characters, which obviously isn't enough. During the little time I did get to play around with the article I realized how all the characters (with the exception of the main characters) really only appear in one of the games. This really negates the reason for a single article containing all the characters - if lots of characters had appeared in multiple games, then it would've been the best option to keep a single list (but that is not the case). Also, I'm sorry for our previous discussions which got a little heated. I hope that is now history and we can work together, if need be, in the future. -Zomic13 19:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ohmygosh! According to the message in italics, TTN! Is it true that you showed an article some mercy? Oh, that's just wonderful! Wilhelmina Will 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

arcane

How do you know that the Jan 6, 2001 independent article doesn't meantion the characters?Geni 20:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. That is why it is up to you to show if that information appears in some random article. The burden of proof is on those that claim something, not those who deny it. TTN 23:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
So you are makeing your edits out of ignorance rather than knowlage? Acticle is hardly radom. Less than a minutes research would have told you that.Geni 23:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, it it up to you or someone wanting to keep the article to provide the real world information. That is all. You can either prove me wrong or wait until someone else does. TTN 23:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Actualy no it is up to you as the one who wants to make a major edit. BOLD, revert, discuss cycle but that rather assumes you are makeing your bold move based on knowlage rather than ignorance.Geni 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That is it. TTN 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you move it to the talk page? did youuse the "{{fact}} template, the section with {{Unreferencedsection}} or if the entire article is unsourced by adding {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}"?Geni 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
We have different procedures with fictional topics; they do not generally improve. If the topic does not assert itself per WP:FICT and WP:WAF, it is merged or redirected. If this were a series of games that are likely to improve with work, then just adding tags and cutting information would be the proper procedure. Just drop it unless you can show that these articles have the potential to become more than the usual crap. TTN 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
We? Which "we" would this be?Geni 00:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not getting into this with you. This is the point where you start to assert that your personal, by-the-book way of doing things is the only method. Drop it until you see that I am actually redirecting articles that exist in the real world without giving them as much as a glance. TTN 00:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
So you reject by the book and instead follow something produced by some mysterious "we"?Geni 00:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A request regarding the Grimmjow Page

I know you tagged it for deletion and thats all fine and dandy I suppose, but instead of a deletion, could it just be a merger, and move him to that Hollow page? I know the standards and all but its just going to be moved there anyway, and as I said in the discussion, the History is all that is really needed. So is it possible that when this discussion is said and done, the page just be redirected?--TheUltimate3 17:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

At this point, it is going to be a majority keep seeing as an admin that will delete in the face of that many keeps is probably one in a thousand. I'm sure it would turn out as merge way before delete anyways. If you want it merged, you'll have to convince the people wanting to keep it that it is the best option. If for some reason it is deleted (unlikely), you can probably just request it to be undeleted, so it can be merged. TTN 17:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression the discussion wasn't going our way. I put in Keep simply to preserve the History. Thanks for the tip/fast reply.--TheUltimate3 18:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You're a Vandal! YOU stop!

Yes, I do know the final outcome, when you're in charge, which is that NOTHING is reliable enough for you! --DanTD 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Quit lying. You're one of the people who condemns editors for using TV.com as a source. ----DanTD 01:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
One, I can't get onto TV.com. I tried to get in when they took over TV.Tome, and the website wouldn't let me in. I'd like to think it was a glitch, but I have no evidence of that. Two, TV.com actually lists Alyson Stoner as having been in a sitcom that ran for four episodes in 1986, despite the fact that she wasn't even born until 1993. Does that sound reliable to you? Three, as I've pointed out in the past, there doesn't seem to be any source that you find relaible enough to make an episode article worth keeping. ----DanTD 01:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
And once again, you've got impossble demands, since interviews for TV episodes are too rare!! If that's all you find reliable, then THERE ARE NO SOURCES!! ----DanTD 03:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned that I tried that and it didn't work. Also, just because YOU think a source is unreliable, doesn't always mean it is. And since you keep changing your criteria for what's considered reliable, it's clear that many of the complaints I and others have had about you have been proven right. ----DanTD 03:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I know you're talking about the wiki. In the case of the Kim Possible Wiki, I haven't been able to get the articles up to the quality they had on mainstream wikipedia(images, infoboxes, etc.), and I haven't been able to make any headway with an Even Stevens wiki. And since I haven't been able to do so, all the images that were meant for it were deleted because YOU deleted the articles they were attached to. Either way, the criteria you're setting is still impossible to live up to, and now I've heard you're going after articles about much more popular TV shows. ----DanTD 04:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I did copy and paste the actual articles, and transfer over templates and images as I needed them, and the results were nowhere near as good as on the main wikipedia page. If you haven't seen them yet, maybe I should show you the results, including my attempt to ask for help in changing a title, that nobody ever replied to. While you may not have set the standards, your vicious enforcement is still making it so that they're impossible to live up to. You trash everything before we can make any improvements. And if I'm not mistaken, these articles were supposed to have been frozen to protect them from your destruction. ----DanTD 04:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
And even when sources are provided, you still think the articles are worthless and you tag them for deletion or redirection. Again, it goes back to the same issue that an episode has to be the Who Shot J.R.? episodes of Dallas, M*A*S*H; Goodbye, Farewell and Amen, or the series finale of The Sopranos, or it shouldn't be covered. And even then, you'll probably find some excuse to trash those in the future as well. I don't think you've paid attention to the consequences of your actions. Go check out the List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes and look at the episode "Team Tipton." If it weren't for you, that plot "summary" would be a synopsis on it's own page. Never mind the fact that you've pissed a lot of people off, you've made a mess of the regular episode lists. --DanTD 04:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I do realize there are people who put a lot of idiotic crap in these articles. It's safe to say that if somebody posted on an American Dragon: Jake Long that Jake & Rose had tawdry sex in one episode, it's pure bullshit. But official sites, fansites, IMDb and TV.com should be considered reliable. The official sites and fansites you claim are unrealiable are actually worthwhile, because they make more sense of the articles, even if they don't have the NPOV required by wikipedia. And yes, I know you're not the only person who deletes these aticles, but your the one who does nothing else other than deleting articles, and you do it faster than anybody can possibly improve them. This is why so many of us are pissed off at you. By the way, did you look at the problems on the List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes caused by your rampant deletions? ----DanTD 14:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I told you I've been having trouble with the damn fansites, and I also told you what was wrong with you're rampant deletions. I've also added sources, which in fact don't violate WP:RS, and you still don't give a shit. If you can't see why what you're doing is wrong, then you are the problem. If you're going to tag these articles, you're going to have to do everything. And when you do(which I know you'll do), I can't wait until all the Trekkies get on your case about deleting Star Trek episodes, if you haven't done it already! ----DanTD 16:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
First, I don't just use links to TV.com as references. I've also used IMDb, and others. Second, I know as well as you, that they're not the best sources, but unless there are articles or interviews regarding these episodes, they're the best most people can get. If I had the ability, I'd make screengrabs and use them as sources, but that would serves as an official source, and be a copyright violation, making it invalid. You see? We can't win this way. We also can't fix articles that violate the standards of wikipedia, if you keep DELETING EVERY GOD-DAMN ONE!!!

Sources are used:

  • To support an assertion made in an article. Sources used in this manner should be directly referenced for the point that is being supported.
  • To give credit to the source, to avoid the appearance of plagiarism or copyright violations.

Block quote

How do any of these violate the policy? If anything, articles on TV episodes strictly of major significance is an indication of eliteism! ----DanTD 17:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't that I don't understand the policy. It's that aspects of the policy conflict with one another, and that your actions are viciously disruptive, and fall into another violation of Wikipedia policy. And I know you don't participate in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but perhaps you should at least read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Episodes, so you'd realize I'm not the only person who feels this way about you. If you don't care to join the discussion, that's your business. In the meantime, I'm going to go there myself, becasue I think I might be able to introduce some kind of compromize over this issue. ----DanTD 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you're aware of this, but somebody else tagged Crush (Kim Possible), as unreferenced, trivia, and notability, and I was ready to fix the article so that it wouldn't violate the standards, until I saw that you deleted the link to So the Drama. This and A Sitch in Time are a lot more significant that the regular series episodes. I know they're not exactly Gone with the Wind, but so what? Even if you had been the one who put the most recent tags there, I would've tried to fix them. For the record, "Crush" is notable simply because it's the first episode. But that never matters to you. If it's fiction, it goes. And even if it's not fiction, and simply doesn't look right, it goes. I also know you have people on your side, but they're as guilty of the same things as you. You all make writing and maintaining the articles a huge pain in the ass! It shouldn't be a pain in the ass, so quit making it one!----DanTD 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
What the hell do you expect me to do in order to get evidence that this is the first episode?! Do you think I can go to the Internet Archives and try to find a schedule from the Disney Channel from June 6, 2002?! They've deleted webpages that are far more important that that. Oh, wait -- that's an official site, so that makes it invalid too, right?! When have you ever written an article?! Because somebody on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Episodes thinks you never have. I don't take everything at face value, but considering your record, I believe that editor. All I've ever seen you do is destroy them. So until I find evidence that you've written other articles, I'm going to believe that destroying them is all you ever do. ----DanTD 19:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the requirements;

You need production and reception information, which Disney would never have.

Honestly, how many other articles on other episodes of other TV shows have this? And how do we as editors know whether or not this will be enough to repel the wrath of the likes of you? Because at least one of the KP episode articles did have some reception info, but I don't see that article anymore. ----DanTD 19:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I already told you I've been having too much trouble with that, and like you, nobody there has been helpful. I've joined at least four other wikis, including the fan wiki. And I've also told you, that if you keep redirecting everything, they can't be fixed. ----DanTD 19:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunatley, I still can't make a sandbox to save my life, so I normally tend to work from a text document instead of a Word Pad one. And when I don't, I'll write and expanded version of the plot sumamry from episode lists, and save expanding them for later. The trouble is, when you redirect and delete all these articles, "later" never comes. In any case, I just don't see how redirecting everything gives us a failsafe for unimproved articles, when you keep trying to make it so that nobody can ever do so. Do you know what I was looking for a few minutes ago? Judgment at Nuremberg. But not the 1961 movie. I was actually looking for the Playhouse 90 episode. You do realize this episode is noted for having it's sponsors censoring the word "gas," don't you? My question about this is, would you tag something like this, and why? ----DanTD 20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


No, later never comes, because you keep deleting the articles before later can come. Before you trashed all the Even Stevens episode articles, I was working on many of them bit by bit, but I was still working on them. I didn't always check and see if other people were working on them, but I did. Others only seemed to need some minor adjustments. But when you got involved, they all had to go regardless of how they were written, and suddenly neither I nor anybody else could do anything with them. On another subject, I hope the sandbox prototype you sent me will work better than the one sent to me back in June. ----DanTD 20:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll say this -- I will give the sandbox another try, and not just for TV epsiodes. Having said that, I still fear that much of the content(infobox, images, and such) will be deleted before they seem acceptable to you, and others like you. ----DanTD 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


TTN, this user is really impassioned by this debate. Couldn't you at least give him a chance to find notability for the articles? Maybe two-three weeks to do so in? Please? Wilhelmina Will 21:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wilhemina Will, if you look at the rest of his talk page, not to mention many of the articles he has touched, you'd realize there are editors who are just as impassioned as I am. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against standards. I'm just against obstructions to reaching these standards. ----DanTD 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop redirecting episodes without discussion when multiple other editors disagree with you


  • I have spoken out against the actions of TTN many times. As more and more informative articles such as video game characters and TV show episode guides get merged, I believe that TTN is really destroying a great encyclopedia and he deserves nothing more than to get banned and most of his mergers reversed. Wikipedia is about expansion, not deletion. If something really deserves to get deleted or merged, then a consensus needs to be met and an admin should carry out the task. Many of the people I know who are WIkipedia users, and not editors, are appalled at the disappearance of many article that they use as a primary point of reference. The first time I became aware of TTN's actions was when he merged all the character articles of Soul (series), which have been since reversed due to the outrage of many readers. What really pissed me off right now is when I noticed the Batman: The Animated Series episodes all got merged and a once informative episode guide is now completely unavailable. These actions can not continue unpunished. —TigerK 69 07:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On sandboxes

Right now, I'm trying to look up other users who have sandboxes, in order to get an idea of what I can and can't do in them. I've just checked out About the Sandbox, and it answers a few questions, but not the ones I want to know. Like for instance, can I work on more than one, and can I hold onto images indefintley. ----DanTD 22:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Somewhat disappointing, considering the number of articles you've redirected. As for the images, I just hope the administrators will say "yes." Nevertheless, I've started a couple of articles I want to work on. ----DanTD 23:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this page List_of_Six_Feet_Under_deaths to be important to the series

and I do not agree with the deletion and redirect by TTN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TTN#Please_stop_redirecting_episodes_without_discussion_when_multiple_other_editors_disagree_with_you [1] rkmlai 01:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Kim Possible Movie: So the Drama

I think you goofed in making the redirect. It does not go to the film. Please check it out. Ward3001 02:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mighty Boosh

To prevent edit wars I suggest you revert your work on the 'Mighty Boosh' episodes. There is not particular problems with them and I showed my objection to getting rid of them and you showed no response, I hope I am never so rude as to do the same.--Wiggstar69 13:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Infact, now I have looked into it I can see you have just gone around wikipedia trying to get rid of episodes for shows you actually know nothing about, hopw could you possibly know if its notible or not?--Wiggstar69 19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You been overuled on this one, even the wikipedia policy disagrees with you it is a valid wiki page if its 'notable' which it is, you simply wish to be pedantic and you are going out of your way to not listen to others and simply redirect page after page of useful information.--Wiggstar69 19:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you an example of how wikipedia actively encourages growth of these pages; the page Doctor Who has been been used as a featured artical even though it holds almost 1000 sub-pages which people such as yourself would believe to be non-notible for example List of Doctor Who serials which itself has a wiki page for every Doctor Who episode aired since 1963, there are pages for each book as well as audio adventures, charicters and spin-off media. If the people who are making these rules are celebrating the huge 'Doctor Who-wikipedia' comunity where is the strength in your argument.--Wiggstar69 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Suggest how 42 (Doctor Who) is better then a Mighty Boosh episode.--Wiggstar69 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If this is all we need then you are suggesting all we need to do is "add some 'outside references' and its all sorted!" I doubt it the 42 (Doctor Who) are at the same level as the Mighty boosh aricals and your argument is flawed.--Wiggstar69 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I might be able to do this for the newest episode which hasn't aired on televsion yet, this one has a poor artical without even a plot but i'll try to add what is needed, if not then fine.--Wiggstar69 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay I understand, I'll tell you what, can you give us some signifiacant time (ie. a month) to re-watch episodes and put together an outside references section on each artical then we'll wait for news re-actions for the new series and make a section for that too, we'll get no-where if we constantly fight, this way the standard of the aricals will improve and earn the right to be.--Wiggstar69 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Problem with the Sandbox method is there are an awful lot of episodes to create a sandbox for each one, also this will make it less likely for others to help in the new edits to be made (and this will need a lot of people), this way will stop edit wars whilst the articals are being improved, if you leave the notice up for one more month then reveiw the articals after that time we'll make sure there is an improvement.--Wiggstar69 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Its a bit dissipointing that your not going with me on the 'lets compromise' front but I'll do it your way if you insist, although I request that you send out a message informing those conserned on the 'merge info page for the articals'telling them whats happening again to stop constant reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggstar69 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunatly in the real world i've been very busy and this managed to slip by without me realising, is it really going to cause much upset to keep it for one more month? If so then I'll leave it, but I honestly think this will go down better with those concerned and stop the constant angry battering whilst the articals are improved, also it will be easier on me since its simpler to get to all the articals without reverting things and making a mess etc.--Wiggstar69 22:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I sthis more what you are looing for? Eels (The Mighty Boosh episode).--Wiggstar69 22:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I have referenced dates, but much like many other episode pages I am unable to reference the continuity unless I say somthing like 'Featured in dialogue'. Would that be fine?--Wiggstar69 23:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The Smallville piolot episode artical is outstanding however I am unable to obtain that much information on production and casting etc, this isn't required for the Doctor Who pages is it going to be neccesary here?--Wiggstar69 23:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


I have done all I can on Eels (The Mighty Boosh episode). It is to the standared required for the Doctor Who episodes. WHat do you think?--Wiggstar69 11:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion about non-notable episodes

Hi. As you may or may not know, some of the criticism concerning your merge/redirect efforts of non(?)-notable TV episode article has now changed to that you redirect the articles without doing the actual merging part. But what if you would just take the (admittedly sometimes excessive) plot summaries (without trivia etc.), planted them untouched onto the episode list and slapped something like {{plot}} and {{shorten}} at the top? This way, the fans can still merrily go on editing (maybe even follow the advice of the cleanup tags, create new season overview pages,...), and some of the criticism becomes moot. I do realise that the resulting episode lists still don't conform to WP:NOT#PLOT, but the unproportional proliferation of ep articles would at least be stopped. (Personally speaking, it is much easier to trim the plot when you already have the text, instead of coming up with a summary yourself.) This whole suggestion is just for TV shows where there is some controversy going on. What do you think? – sgeureka t•c 19:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It may work for a couple people here and there, but the rest will just complain about something else. All they're doing is moving from one thing to another. First it was that I was being bold about it. After, it was that I was moving too quickly with redirecting. Now, it's that I discount "valid opinions" and other stuff like the "deletion" of the articles. I really doubt anything will make them content besides leaving them as they stand. TTN 19:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

lady in waiting

I suspect that most people would consider "Billy Goldenberg the artist who made the music for this episode was nominated for an Emmy Award for Outstanding Achievement in Music Composition - For a Series or a Single Program of a Series, for this episode" to be real world information.Geni 23:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Farscape Redirects

Please do not bring those back until it is shown that they can reach even as far as the first episode's condition. The first episode barely establishes notability as it is, so you're going to have to put in some work for the non-special episodes to become decent. As for consensus, only WP:ILIKEIT comments have been given for reasons to keep, so consensus is found in policies and guidelines. TTN 18:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuizzicalBee"

NO, YOU stop. Your discussion page is full of numerous complaints from people for your obsessive redirecting of TV pages without consensus or explicit need. I, and other Farscape editors, will continue to work on the Farscape episodes. Your redirects are invalid, for the numerous reasons already mentioned on your talk page many times. It would be a far more profitable way to spend your time to ADD INFORMATION to Wikipedia. Instead, you force people to waste hours and hours on unproductive editing wars that add nothing to Wikipedia, but instead make less information available to all. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that unlike published sources, these pages can be continually edited, continually improved and the learning experience can be enriched for all. To say that because at any given time you happen to notice it, something doesn't meet the standards, and must be removed immediately lest Wikipedia be soiled by its presence, is simply ridiculous. In all the time I've wasted debating back and forth with you, I could have greatly improved several of the Farscape episode sites. And it's a very real concern that when I do add things, they're just going to be deleted and/or redirected by you, which will waste even more of my time and increase frustration levels. If you have something positive to contribute, then do it, rather than destroying what others create.QuizzicalBee 18:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything eventually leads back to our policies and guidelines, and none of the complaints even come close to being based from their standpoints. Do not even pretend that you cannot improve the articles because of me. You could easily work in a sandbox, or just apply the sources and go from there. As I said, you only need the level of the first episode, which would take ten minutes if it is easy as you claim. I suggest that you head over to TV.com and Wikia if you would like to continue to write about the episodes. TTN 19:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuizzicalBee"

Your arguments are contrary to the policies and guidelines. There is plenty of reason to keep these pages, and the work WILL be done. There is no reason these things need to be redirected right this second. I'm not working to YOUR timeline. That's overstepping the bounds of Wiki editing; you've just appointed yourself the redirector Wiki articles you've arbitrarily decided should go IMMEDIATELY. The idea that one of these episodes doesn't belong, but a random episode of, say, Lost, is fine because the far larger pool of editors available to a currently airing network show found the time to add a bunch of links before I have gotten a chance to add similar links to the Farscape pages, is ridiculous. Of course it takes longer than 10 minutes. It's a lot of pages, and a lot of potential things to add. Chill. Why the obssession with redirecting things?QuizzicalBee 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
oh TTN, you evil man! This exchange is a perfect (albeit depressing) example of how policies are simply ignored. Why don't these people go to wikia and fancruft to their hearts content? Eusebeus 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Notification of Request for Arbitration "TTN, part Deux"

Just a heads up, I've requested Arbitration with regards to your merge/redirect edits to TV, video game and whatnot articles. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#TTN.2C_part_Deux. Please add your statement as soon as you can. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Request

The Ike discussion on List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance is starting to infuriate me and this Wikada bloke seems pretty tenacious about the subject. He's stopped listening to me, so do you fancy providing an extra opinion? Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion about Frank West (Dead Rising)

There was a discussion about this and the result was opposed to a merge. link
Smile Lee 16:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
DUDE! Leave the article alone, it was put through a merge debate. It's over, let the article stay!
Smile Lee (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging articles

When redirecting episode articles that are not notable please could you remove the wikiproject television tag from the talk page if it is present?--Opark 77 16:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delisting

Hi - I noticed you delisted a few Pokemon articles simultaneously recently. I just wanted to draw your attention to the best practice for delisting articles described at WP:GAR. In particular, it encourages reviewers to leave comments on the talk page of the article, and to give other editors a chance to respond. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

TTN...

Just asking. Do you do any work for Wikipedia other than merging and deleting? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's his hobby. --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

T-bone, that Hanzo sir is very unhappy. Couldn't you gently go and explain what exactly is wrong, give extreme details, and provide him with a particular wikia for whatever characters he's complaining for? Please? (Of course, I might've, but I don't know what this is all about, and even if I did, I wouldn't understand the policies enough to explain it thoroughly. Please? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I leave Wikipedia in protest

I spent hundreds of hours writing for Wikipedia, I would have actually spend whole days just to improve this project. I started and finished dozens of articles, I did tens of thousands of edits in thousands of articles otherwise - mostly about the so-called "real world information". I put a lot of effort (I would correct every single coma), research, and most of all time into all this. Anyone may check my edits now to see my contributions.

However, I can't be no longer part of the community where some individuals are summarily and indiscriminately destroying, vanishing without trace these years of hard work of the a huge number of a real contributors who just tried their best, only because seemingly rules changed lately. Just like this. I came-I saw-I deleted. Hooray, good work! Congratulations from the fellow deleters! Here, have this this star award of an awesome deleter! What the hell is wrong with you people?

You know, Wikipedia used to be a wonderful idea, the encyclopedia that anyone may write on just any subject, and the others may correct, expand, perfect - and this ruled by democratic votings on averything to deal with the controversy by consensus. It went downhill a lot from there, and now it's no more.

So, after becoming enraged, I calmed down a little and decided to just stop my effort here. It wasn't that hard, actually. I see no place for me here anymore, where some e-fascist may decide tommorow my entries were worthless, because apparently the rules just changed again, and, how Encyclopedia Dramatica would put this, "delete fucking everything".

So, I decided to do something, and this is I quit. At one moment even wanted to ask to revert all my edits ever done or delete this account, but come on. What for. I'm just going to finish writing this and then repost this to the person who has sparked this, and logoff. Good-bye whoever concern this. --HanzoHattori (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

He's absolutely right, T-bone. Please see my userpage under the section in which I give my views on the policies. It's still going underwork, but it should give you some ideas of how silly it is to follow these policies. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Prison Break

I was wondering if you could look into that? I have feeling that there are too many articles regarding Prison Break, I mean, there aren't many cultural references there. And I fail to see real-world info in the articles. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't being specific. I meant the episodes. See Prison Break episodes, and all the articles there. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll get around to it eventually. My current focus is on characters, so it will probably be a while. TTN (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Take all the time you need. I know it's hard work to merge so many articles, but someone has to do it. Just do it when you feel like it, I understand if you don't wanna do it, thanks anyway. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters

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/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/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, they really aren't there to govern content/policies and guidelines. It's supposed to be the last part of our long and drawn out dispute resolution process. Though, it would be nice to get someone to declare that policy is more important than fan numbers. TTN (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Z Fighters

Why not redirect the article to Category:Z Fighters? I don't believe redirecting a page to a category is against policy or anything, though I could be wrong. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Cross-namespace redirects are either against something or they are looked down upon. Feel free to look it up, and fix the redirect accordingly. TTN (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TTN/Archive_10&oldid=173367281"