User talk:Drovethrughosts

Archives

2009–10 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014

Notice Of Dispute Resolution Regarding International Co-Production

Hey hey, I wanted to bring this to your attention as a matter of urgency, best wishes. Twobells (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

So I've been on this site for a long, long time now and I've come to realize that I actually fucking hate it. I have two jobs and an ill parent who is dependent on me, so lots and lots going on. This isn't really new, but lately it just seems like this site is nothing but childish bickering between immature, anonymous editors who have no real interest in making "good" articles, but just in getting their own way. Every single day on this site is nothing but frustration and I have much better things to do. So I'm done. I'm so fucking done. You are basically the only editor left on this whole site that I agree with or have even the smallest amount of respect for. It's been nice working with you the past few years. Look after everything. You can e-mail me at schrutedit12@hotmail.com if you wanna keep in touch or something. If not, job well done, man. I don't know how you put up with it. Peace out. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm sorry to hear that, for both that you're leaving and that you have an ill parent. I mean, you don't owe anything to this site, and obviously if you have more important real-life things to deal with, then that's definitely what you should be concentrating on. I totally understand. And I have noticed that you've been editing less the past while. Yes, the "battles" do get a bit annoying, I try my best to steer clear of them as much as I can, especially if I'm not invested in what's being discussed. The respect definitely goes both ways, it's hard for me to think of another editor since I've been here that's been as consistent as you and someone who's the most like me in terms of editing style. But don't look at it like you have to leave, you can contribute whenever you want, when you have time. Or, if it is just easier to straight-up leave, then do it man. Do whatever's best for you. I wish you luck in the future, and hopefully see you again on here. If you truly want to keep in touch and discuss more, we can definitely do that. Peace Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! "Shane....come back, Shane!" — Wylie pedia 06:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for removal of supernatural fiction from The X-Files

Hi can i ask your reasoning for the removal of supernatural fiction from the X-Files seasons? The monster of the week episodes of the X-Files are indeed mainly supernatural fiction as well as the second film.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The X-Files is for the most part classified as science fiction. Adding other genres to the lead just clutters it up. If you add supernatural, why not horror, drama, mystery, thriller, etc,? The opening sentence should be a clean and simple as possible. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because supernatural fiction covers most of those genres that you mentioned, save for some sci-fi episodes having horror elements in them. Point is calling the X-Files just science fiction is misleading given half the episodes are about non-scientific elements. I even shortened supernatural fiction to [supernatural fiction|supernatural] to avoid the clutter you mentioned and repeating the term fiction twice.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this topic and The X-Files: I Want to Believe--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion in which you are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring by Twobells. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Twobells reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: ). Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 13:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joke of a DR

Drove, I just posted on the DRN requesting the joke of a DR on BSG be closed. Twobells hasn't posted to it since January 22 and on Wikipedia since January 30. This has become a farce, and it's time to close it down. I hope it's acceptable that I commented that you and I both were OK with the article as it stood before all this started. --Drmargi (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at it in awhile, I'll check now. And yeah, I was okay with some compromise, but yes, I'm totally okay with the article standing the way it is now. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some compromise were Twobells to have continued with the discussion, yes, but given he didn't, there's no need for any change. We were fine with the article as was. He had his chance, and how, and given he has bailed on his own filing, I see no reason to continue with the whole mess. --Drmargi (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!

Hey, I just wanted to stop by and express my deepest gratitude for the outstanding work you do on here. I feel like there is so much idiocy and monotony out there that editors like you need some form of positive reinforcement. If you ever need any assistance, don't hesitate ask. :) Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind words. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fargo Transmission

Bases on my experience on wikipedia I have mostly seen the list of seasons listed as transmission see Gogglebox as one example. Thank You. JohnGormleyJG (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given my 7+ years and almost 50,000 edits regarding TV series articles, I've never seen "transmission" used once. You're using a very obscure example, and British at that, where "transmission" is more common. "Episodes" is the proper name, as that's what the article has always had. Do not change it again or it will be just reverted. And it was you who added "Transmission" to the Gogglebox article, so that doesn't really count. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :( JohnGormleyJG (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Walking Dead: Critical Reception

Hello, the contribution that I posted today was not "uncited original research". Each of the two referenced websites stated the percentage of their critics who gave a positive rating to The Walking Dead; I noted the result of a simple (first grade?) math problem using those percentages. The referenced paragraph currently quotes from three negative reviews even though 83% of the reviewers gave the show a positive rating, hence my attempt to counteract this counterintuitive wrong and inject logic into the paragraph.

Both RT and Metacritic feature 22 reviews, do you not notice that they obviously overlap featuring most of the same reviews, thus "37 of the 44" is made up. Did you read every review, and is it actually true that "three of the eight who did not complained about its pace." (which is poorly written, honestly)? If you're so obsessed with only including positive reception, why not add more positive reviews from critics from RT and Metacritic? The minutia of "three of the eight who did not complained about its pace" is unnecessary. The section should focus on actual comments and quotes from critics, not calculating percentages. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to be hostile and judgmental. Nothing was deliberately "made up". I had not read every single review nor had I noticed that some critics' reviews were featured on both websites, not that it matters because over 80% of unique reviewers on both websites gave an overall positive rating to The Walking Dead. It did not make sense to me that only negative reviews were quoted, despite being in the small minority. I am unsure about why you are making such a fuss about the matter.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one's making a fuss, I was simply reverting the unwarranted removal of cited content that had no basis other than "I don't like it" (as I far as I could tell). GoneIn60 is making good copyedits to that section, it should be fine now. Please just don't remove properly cited content for no good reason in the future though. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Americans (season 3)

Hey, I see you dropped in the ratings for last nights episode, but I can't find the info on the cited TV by the Numbers site...? LLArrow (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were on there when I posted them. Sometimes they update the articles, and some shows get removed with the update (as I didn't see Sunny on the list when I posted for The Americans). Should hopefully have a replacement source soon (either Headline Planet or TV Series Finale). Thanks for letting me know, it's happened before. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:M.A.D. Veronica Mars

Hi,
Thanks for all the help, first of all! I think adding the italics around Veronica Mars in the titles of the episodes was a good idea. Secondly, The screenshot that I used for "M.A.D." was recently tagged for deletion. I think it's appropriate, but could you possibly chime in with your thoughts on Files for Deletion? (It's February 11 by the way). Thanks in advance and I don't mind even if you think it should be deleted! :) BenLinus 1214^talk 03:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and great continuous work with the VM episode articles. Personally, it would be hard for me to say that image shouldn't be deleted, as it's not particularly noteworthy or identifiable (per Wikipedia guidelines). Sorry. :( Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought. Is there another screenshot from that episode that you would recommend? BenLinus 1214^talk 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you… and...

Thank you for your thoughtful attention to (and through source-referencing, largely settling) the "main" v. "recurring" character issue at the Marvel Agent's… articles. You may wish to take a moment and look at the "Fitz plot element important v. unimportant" Talk entry at the season 2 episodes article, as I think your fellow editor there is more willing to go with gut than reason or sources, on this separate issue. Otherwise, I'm done with these, and have nothing more to offer on either matter. Cheers, have enjoyed the education that you offered. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You made some very thoughtful comments as well. Happy editing. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Hello Drovethrughosts, I am inquiring form you is there any possible way for myself to become an administrator. I am aware there is a request form but not sure where it is. I came here as I know you are an administrator so I was hoping for you're help. Also if you have any tips on how to get qualified please tell me.

Thank You so much for your help JohnGormleyJG (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JohnGormleyJG, to clarify, I am not an administrator on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Administrators for info about being an admin on Wikipedia. If you want serious tips or guidance from me regarding this, I could do that if you wish, though I will be honest, as becoming an admin is not an easy process. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was almost certain you were one. That surprises me a lot. I probably don't have much of a chance of getting accepted if you weren't. Thank you for your response. Also I would be happy to hear your tips on becoming an admin. JohnGormleyJG (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I wasn't accepted, it's simply that I've never applied for it. To be honest, looking through your edit history and talk page history, applying for adminship at this time would not be a good idea. You are not ready. You've only been editing since April 2014 and just have over 700 edits to articles.

For specific examples:

You edited warred on List of How I Met Your Mother episodes and undid someone's edit even though they linked to a guideline saying what you were doing was incorrect. Looking through your edit and talk page history, it seems you've edit warred quite a few times.
Your addition here is unsourced. This is one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia; that content must be verifiable. Also, when adding references, please follow Template:Cite web, and not just add references with just the url.
From your user page, "I wish their could be articles for TV characters in any show the fact that you need character reception is just ridiculous" is very misguided. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. I've linked you to it before and I suggest you fully understand the guideline WP:PLOT. For example, your creation of the various 24 characters from Live Another Day (which I was involved in) showed a lack of understanding of the guidelines.
Also from your user page, that you plan on removing all "ugly" red links. Again, please read the guideline WP:REDLINK.
You've uploaded several non-free images (including several being deleted), which shows a lack of understanding of the non-free image guidelines on Wikipedia.
You've made several reverts of others editors on Template:The King of Queens, however you never explain why. I suggest using the edit summary more often.

You need to establish yourself much more, making quality edits with references, reverting vandalism, and following and understanding guidelines, etc. Hope you don't feel I was too harsh, but I wanted to be blunt and to-the-point, especially if you're seriously considering applying for admin. You also need to ask "why" you're looking to want to be an admin, what is it that you'd want to accomplish as admin that you can't as a regular editor. Always feel free to contact me for anything. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your help. Also do you feel I am doing more better or worse to wikipedia have some of my edits been a good contribution to this site. Thanks for your feedback JohnGormleyJG (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, your edits are clearly in good faith and are helpful. I just suggest familiarize yourself a bit more with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Concentrate on making quality edits with references, reverting vandalism, expanding articles, etc. Good luck. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You JohnGormleyJG (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you so much for helping me with my Veronica Mars episode articles and being so nice about it! Now that I'm done with season one, I thought it it would be appropriate to send a little appreciation for your work! :) BenLinus 1214^talk 16:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better Call Saul

"I'd like to ask you to stop your disruptive editing on Better Call Saul. You changed it to read "US" to suit your liking. Once I supplied you with a Wikipedia guideline link you then made changes to the article, inserting "UK", so that you then can use "US". That is ridiculous and you only did that so the article could suit your liking. The article is about an American subject, is written in American English, thus "U.S." is preferred and the article has always read "U.S.". You also do not link country names per WP:OVERLINK nor insert country name into location parameter in the infobox if it's the same as country of origin. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

Can you STOP making the rules up to suit yourself! This being an "American subject" does not preclude it from following the US vs. U.S. guidelines, regardless of the edits I made or otherwise AT ANY TIME. Jimthing (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]