User talk:Thebigfan
Introduction
Welcome to my talk page. It ain't much, but feel free to leave a comment or two.
December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Garfield Show, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: The Garfield Show was changed by Thebigfan (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-12-07T01:55:27+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Cool! So ur Spongebobsquarepants? Cool! --Andrewrox (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I have declined the CSD tag that you applied to Big Thinkers (video game series) as there is enough content in the article to identify the subject. While the subject may or may not be notable, you can determine what it is. If you wish to pursue deletion with the article, I recommend that you follow the Articles for Deletion process. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The article Monsters Inc. 2 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Fails WP:CRYSTAL.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The Garfield Show episodes
Hi -- When you edited The Garfield Show, you wrote: "No adding any more episodes until I get that episode list from Mark Evanier confirming them or until they premiere." I'm not sure what you mean by not adding anymore episodes to the episode list of The Garfield Show until you get the episode list from Mark Evanier confirming them or until they premiere. I checked out some episodes that are not on the Wikipedia page on IMDB, but it is often forgotten that both rely on user contributions, which do not require the user to prove their own sources or accuracy. After all, why would you want everyone to listen to your little hidden message on the page under Season 2 and not add any more episode titles until you get an episode list from Mark Evanier? --SonyWonderFan (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
wp:own on The Garfield Show
Hi there. Just dropping you a note that you're displaying potential ownership issues over at The Garfield Show. Telling other users not to add or change tghings until you've received emails from Mark Evanier is not really the way things should be done.
Firstly, this is Wikipedia - anybody can edit, provided they're using reliable sources. Which brings me onto point two: A personal email from Mark Evanier to you is not a reliable source, so cannot be used as the basis for additions or deletions from the page.
If you can find reliable published sources, then go ahead and add, ut otherwise, accept that your additions will be scrutinised, and potentially removed, just as you're doing the same to others. a_man_alone (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- While I disagree with the statement above that a personal email can never be a reliable source, I think it's important to keep in my mind that personal emails are generally not reliable sources because their existence usually can't be verified, and neither can the identity of the sender. Evanier publicly posting that he'd sent you the email provided the verification on both these points. There are editors out there who fake sources (see Talk:Chase Masterson, for example). Now please excuse me, I must go write the details of my emails from Christine O'Donnell, begging me for a repeat of our wild sexual encounter last weekend, and Hosni Mubarak, thanking me for talking him into "retiring," into the relevant articles. . . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Taken from Garfield Talk page
- How about instead of telling me I've not read the reliable sources page, how about you tell me what one would be. What about the official Garfield web site or The Garfield Show Diary? You can't tell me those aren't reliable, because these are official. P.S. I am not arguing about reliable sources, I'm arguing about the fact that these episodes are real or not and I know they are, just wait 'til they premiere (I know they will, just trust me), you'll be shocked. Mark Evanier (writer) confirmed these on his web site, is it reliable? Would he lie about what he wrote? He said:
this web site is credible... to them [Wikipedia] anyway.
--Codyrox (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it's up to the contributing editor to justify their additions, by finding reliable sources, not the challenging editor. However, I'll help you out this once. Yes, www.thegarfieldshow-diary.com would be a reliable source - something they publish on their webpage would be considered reliable. However, if you received an email from the garfieldshow-diary.com and tried to use it as justification - especially if the info contained in the email wasn't available on the webpage, then that email is not a reliable source.
And, I might also point out (just for a laugh) that "I know they will, just trust me" is hardly reliable justification for inclusion. I won't be shocked, just trust me.
I am arguing about reliable sources, because that's what you have singularly failed to display comprehension of. I have not argued against the existence of these episodes at any point, merely the sources you are using to show their existence.
I have no more interest in the additions to the page itself, as that issue has been resolved. What has not been resolved is your failure to understand why they were challenged in the first place, and your insitence on non-reliable sources being reliable, coupled with your insistence on knowing what makes a reliable source - when you quite evidently don't. a_man_alone (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)