User talk:Kevinbrogers/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

A tag has been placed on The True Victory, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of The True Victory and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The True Victory

Hello! I will be glad to attempt to work on the article with you! Keep working at it, I might try to find more sourcing. But note: just because I removed the CSD doesn't mean the article is "safe". It does make a claim of notability, so now it's our job to find sources to back that up. :D God bless, American Eagle (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious - what exactly is the claim of notability you saw? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a question for you... you cannot prove that it is NOT true. And you are trying to say that because we cannot prove it IS true, the article should be deleted. I think some more research should be done before we make any hasty decisions here, whether they be favorable or not. Kevinbrogers (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I have never once said that the film isn't true, or doesn't exist. What is undeniable, however, is that the film hasn't even been made yet. Not one scene has been shot or edited, and the film has certainly not been released. Nothing that you have posted can be verified in reliable sources. The film has apparently received no significant coverage. You seem to want to claim that film is notable - in that case, you need to present evidence from multiple reliable published sources that back you up. You've yet to do so, and frankly, at this stage in your production, I don't see how you can do so. I'm not opposed to re-creating the article if and/or when the film actually gets made - but you have to see that it is WAY too early, and the film isn't even remotely notable, based on this information provided, at this time. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I realize your frustration. The reason I keep saying it is true is so that when it is reviewed for deletion, it has a better chance. And you are right, not one scene has been filmed. But what YOU cannot deny (and I realize this is going to be scrutinized) is that other film articles are created during the pre-production stage and they do not get this sort of heavy scrutinization. If it has anything to do with it's church affiliations (and I'm not accusing you of anything) it constitutes religious discrimination. Again, I'm not accusing anyone here. But I strongly feel that this article should be kept. And if not, is there any article anywhere that it can be merged with? Perhaps if I created an article for the church? Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Please don't try to play the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists or discrimimation card - I'm looking at this as a film, and a film only. Sidetracking the discussion with spurious accusations or inferences doesn't do your arguments any credit. Film articles get deleted all the time - those that survive either have legitimate verifiable referencing out the wazoo, or will get deleted in time. They "get this sort of heavy scrutinization" all the time. Of course you feel like the article should be kept - it's your film - but therein lies the problem - you haven't looked at this objectively. But honestly - what is so notable about the film, other than the fact that you like it, or that it's being made locally? Can you point to even one legitimate verifiable article from an independent source that gives more than trival passing mention to it? Because I've searched, and I can't even find that much... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
With the discrimination card, I'm simply saying IF that's what was going on (and you've made it clear that it's not) then I'm deeply offended. Which now, I'm not, since that's obviously not the case. However, I AM deeply offended that you call this not notable at all, when you obviously don't know the first thing about it. I haven't posted a plot outline for copyright and legal reasons. And yes, I AM looking at it objectively. I see a film that has a good chance at being made. I also see, though, that there are no references. And you avoided the big question: If I merged it into a different article (which is what happens to a lot of film articles), would that change anything? Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
What could you possibly merge it to? Its inclusion in any other articles would be subject to the same notability and referencing requirements, which the film can't meet at this time. Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote your film - you'd be better served setting up your own websites for that. As I've mentioned already, and I hope you take note this time, should the film actually get made and gain some notability, someone (hopefully not connected to the film) should create an article for it then - but not before. You have still yet to explain, regardless of whether you're deeply offended by the question or not, exactly why this film is so notable in your eyes - because I'm not seeing it, based on the information provided so far. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You aren't paying attention. If I were to create a page for the church, and mention, but not elaborate on, the fact that they were creating a film, would that be okay? And do I have to say it again? It is NOT ADVERTISING. This film is notable. Look at Facing the Giants. They started the same way, and were successful. And don't say anything about other stuff exists, because that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that they started the same way and were successful in what they did. The film is notable, I'll say it again. 30+ people are involved. Scripts have been written. Equipment has been purchased. Locations have been scouted. And back to advertising. Nowhere do I say "This is the greatest film ever made" or "Rotten Tomatoes says this." Show me specifically which part is advertising, and I'll take another look. Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, the vast majority of this argument is based on opinions (whether or not it is notable, etc.). Give me a little time to find resources that prove the notability of this film, and I'll do it. I'm leaving soon to begin principal photography, if that helps at all. I know YouTube isn't reliable, but would any sort of media involved with the film help? That may seem like advertising, but part of the argument against me is that nothing has been started. If it does get started, would that help in any way? Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The mere fact that you yourself are on here plugging your own film is advertising. And your film is not notable just because you say it is - notability requires verifiable evidence, and you have yet to provide any evidence to support that claim. Every film has lots of crew members, has a written script, and buys equipment. What the heck makes yours so special? Notability is also not inhereited - yes, Facing the Giants started the way you did, but the filmmakers finished the film and got it released... and while it was trashed critically, there's plenty of legitimate independent coverage of the film - but, and this is the important part, that article wasn't created until the film got coverage in the LA Times and The Huffington Post. You don't even have local press (so far as I've seen), and you expect us to turn a blind eye because you think it's worthwhile? I don't think so. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You have failed, once again, to listen, so I'm going to put it in all caps: I AM GOING TO GET SOME SOURCES. PLEASE WAIT WHILE I DO SO. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and self-aggrandizement

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'M SICK AND TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT THIS RULE. I UNDERSTAND NOW. HAS ANYONE EVEN READ THE ARTICLE? DID I PROMOTE IT IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN CREATING A PAGE ABOUT IT? JUST BECAUSE I AM INVOLVED WITH PRODUCTION DOES NOT MEAN I AM BIASED. Thank you. Have a nice day. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just a little angry. But please let me point out that a CoI is not grounds for deletion. At least, that's the way I understand it. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You're definitely correct on that. The grounds for deletion of the article have nothing to do with COI. Nonetheless, COI is one of our strong principles to which we must adhere, regardless of our personal feelings. If this were not so, there would be an article in Wikipedia about Finding the Future:A Science Fiction Conversation, a film in which both myself and my daughter appear, which got made, released, shown at film festivals, and is commercially available; but is nonetheless not notable enough for an article here. If I cannot uphold principles uniformly, then I am just another whited sepulchre. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I say your film should be put on here, if you want my opinion, and I think it's pretty awesome that you were able to do that. Congrats. And I think I have heard of that actually. (not trying to stray away from the previous conversations...) But anyway, I see why people don't think CoI articles are good enough, but I still would honestly rather read one of those than one by someone who has nothing to do with it, as long as those people are objective. I'll comply with the rules, even if I don't agree with them. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it wasn't my film, just one for which we were interviewed. The main reason behind our conflict of interest rules is that, even with the best good will in the world, it is impossible for somebody to be truly impartial about the projects in which they are most involved. One of the admittedly snarkiest essays in Wikipedia (and essays are by definition statements of opinion, not principle) is titled, "Nobody Cares About Your Garage Band." Our children, churches, bands, websites, books, clubs, small businesses and other projects: these things are precious to us, and it is impossible for us to be impartial about them; so we are admonished not to try to write about them. This film is the equivalent not only of a garage band, but of a new garage band; and the concerns are the same. This is not, as has been said, about you, but about the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Monk episodes

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Monk episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've failed to explain why you keep removing all of my edits to the page, even though I've added reliable sources. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Becksmithhollywood, spoilertv.blogspot.com, and Photomaniacal are blogs. IMDB is generally user-generated content, so unless it's WGA locked credits, which your IMDB link wasn't, your sources fail the WP:RS standards. Had you actually read those guidelines, you would realize that I explained this to you in each edit summary. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Fine, then last year, when the Season 7 titles were placed ahead of time, what references did they use? Because if I recall correctly, there were none, and no one said anything then. I'm pretty sure this is getting personal, rather than what's best for Wikipedia. It's obvious. Kevinbrogers (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't care what happened last year - that's just a dodge to justify keeping your contributions, when three editors on that article have now reverted your edits because of poor sourcing. What is obvious is that you don't like your actions being questioned. You can also stop the snarky personal attacks - the only one trying to make this personal is you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Three editors last year did exactly what I'm doing, and no one questioned them. And what happened last year is relevant. Just pointing that out. And if you'll read your talk page, there is SUBSTANTIAL evidence saying that lots of people have problems with you, not just me. And the only reason I have a problem is because I am being repeatedly offended by Wikipedians' actions, not just you. There are so many people on here who apparently don't think my information is good enough, so I'm just going to stop dealing with stupid people and leave this site alone. I'll find some other place that welcomes my knowledge instead of questioning it. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I see someone's still not clear on the whole idea of "discuss the content, not the editor". Pity. You know, if a lot of people are telling you that your articles or some of your edits are a problem, don't you think that there just MIGHT be some truth to that? There's not a great conspiracy just to make Kevin B. Rogers look bad. Maybe you should take a step back and really look at the situation. If you still can't see the mistakes you've made, well, your loss. Good luck with your filming. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the good luck, really. I just feel a little offended by the fact that every edit I have ever made has been criticized, and then I go out and try to fix it, just to be put down again. Maybe if someone stepped in and tried to help me find credible sources or something, I'd feel less strongly about this. But right now, I'm sticking to what I say, and nothing anyone says will compromise that. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Sigh - don't take this the wrong way, but at this point, you have no credible sources, nor are you likely to magically come up with some in the next few days. I've done several searches on this today, to no avail - you apparently only created the Facebook page a few days ago. The film's not in production yet, and you still (according to the article) haven't even cast a lot of the roles yet. Right there, the film fails the notibility requirements for future films. When asked about even local press, you can't (or haven't) come up with anything. This is not meant to sound mean, or disparaging, but you don't have anything to show for this film yet, other than your plans... you don't even have a webpage - not even a free one like Geocities - just a Facebook group with two fans, one of whom is you. I don't know how much clearer I can make this - I'm not averse to the idea of a page for the film if and/or when it gets completed, and if gets some notice - but that day is not today. It's not personal, nor should you try to make it so. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I understand. I'll admit, part of the reason for creating this page was for promotional purposes. At the time, I truly believed that it was notable enough. In defense of the article, though, all parts have been cast, I just didn't have the actors' permissions to post the names online yet. The Facebook page was created just a few days ago (although it does have more than 2 fans, not sure why they aren't showing up). I'll archive the page or save it to my computer or something, and if it's not in violation of anything CoI related, I'll repost it for editing later, once the film has been released and there has been more publicity surrounding it. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Because of the self-admitted conflict of interest, I would recommend editing the article in your own sandbox (such as User:Kevinbrogers/The True Victory) when it more significantly reaches Wikipedia's criteria, and requesting it to be reviewed before publishing it. Even after that, it still won't belong to you, so anyone else will be able to edit it — within the guidelines, of course. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'll do that. In the meantime, go ahead and delete the article. Hopefully in the future it will be notable enough, and thanks for the tips. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping to work on the article and add sources, but as it's such a new film, I couldn't find any yet. In the future, I'd love to help out when sources are available! :D American Eagle (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright, thanks though. There aren't any online sources, but there are some in print. For now, the page is being deleted, but feel free to edit it at User:Kevinbrogers/The True Victory. I'm not sure if it lets you edit someone else's sandbox, since I've never done it before, but hopefully. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wasn't doing vandalism, just trying to fix the mess written by some anonymous guy (before me on the history list) He had put 16 lame titles instead of the six we know... Glad you fixed all of this.

Darkcook (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Woooow, thanks for the writers list! I'm always a fan of the writers when I love a show, always keeping an eye on who is writing each episode, but with Monk, I didn't have time to put everything on the page, you did great!

Darkcook (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you inverted episodes 3,4 and 11, according to the IGN list (though I don't know this site relevance) I don't have time to correct it, this morning. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkcook (talk • contribs) 05:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Darkcook (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Interview?

Hey! I would've sent you an email, but you don't seem to have that enabled. Seeing as you are directing The True Victory, would you allow me to interview regarding it? I am creating a Christian Films website, and I'd like to publish in via that. If you don't want to, that is fine. But if you are willing, please email me at FromAE[at]gmail[dot]com, saying so. God bless you, American Eagle (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Kevinbrogers/The True Victory

Please remove the categories from User:Kevinbrogers/The True Victory. Those categories don't belong in User space. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I will, but before I do, please explain why. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Those categories are for use in article space. The current version of the article is in User space. Article categories don't belong in User space. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Right, I know. But why don't they belong there? Is it hurting anything? Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Categories are designed to link people to actual completed articles, not to works in progress, personal essays, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, this warning you posted on Who then was a gentleman's talk page is completely out-of-line - especially considering that you posted it *after* you were informed that your use of categories on a page in userspace was inappropriate. I would advise you to remove it and apologize. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Listen, that warning was legit. He has no right to edit my userpage. Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
And I will apologize when I get some respect. User:Who then was a gentleman? has been nothing but rude to me throughout this entire ordeal. Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Not exactly offensive, but my question never did get answered, at least, not by him. What I meant by the above was that I didn't understand why the categories didn't belong in the userspace. I still don't quite understand that. Are they hurting or affecting something? (And I don't know what FWIW means) Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I see... if an article contains the categories, it links to them from the category's list? (I was confused on that, because when I went to one of the ones from my article, the article wasn't listed there) Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Categories are only for articles in actual article namespace. Userpages and the like should not be listed along with actual articles. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't template the regulars

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User_talk:Who then was a gentleman? has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that wasn't a test. I don't want people editing my user page. It's offensive to me. Kevinbrogers (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Offensive? You certainly do take offense easily - especially when you were the one in the wrong. As I said before (and I'm repeating it in the hopes that you will pay attention this time), your warning message on Who then was a gentleman's talk page was completely out-of-line. Perhaps you've missed this message, which shows up onscreen every time you make an edit: "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Heck, Who then was a gentleman didn't even rewrite anything of yours - he just commented out the categories, which don't belong on subpages. The subpages for your film aren't technically userpages - they are test pages, and are subject to the same rules as other pages. You don't own any page here on Wikipedia - not even your userpages - if there's something on there that doesn't belong, any editor is within his/her rights to remove or correct that. If you want respect, then perhaps you should learn how things work around here and try to earn that respect, as opposed to simply demanding it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
In line with the above, please review WP:SUBPAGE. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Consider this a tier-2 warning. This is an inappropriate use of template messages. Continuing to misuse these templates will eventually result in a block to prevent further disruption. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, I tried being reasonable. I removed the categories, didn't I? I understand I don't own the userpages, but is there not a rule that says you cannot edit userpages to the extent that it is offensive? I'm sorry I take offense easily, but that's just how it is. And if you aren't going to respect me, then I'm not going to respect you. That's just the way it's going to be. As far as the tier-2 warning goes, what in the world? Seriously. That was a legitimate warning. If I become a "regular" and start editing other people's userpages or sandboxes, does that make me immune to warnings? Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If you were being reasonable, why then did you re-add the false warning to Who then was a gentleman's talk page after you had been told it was inappropriate? You knew then it was out-of-line, so why did you re-add it? That's why CobaltBlueTony hit you with a tier-2 warning. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, it is not a legitimate warning. This is how Wikipedia works: categories don't go in user subpages or sandboxes, and removal of them is perfectly legitimate, so using warnings against someone who does so justifiably is not appropriate. Template warnings are to discourage site abusers, and encourage newer users to comply with the community consensus on basic editing. Your use of the template does neither. No one is here disrespecting you, but you are disrespecting the community here. The community does not cater to your threshold of offense when it is considered disruptive to the process or community. If you cannot focus on the content, and take offense to policies you do not like or understand, you won't enjoy helping out here. I fear that this will be the case, as you appear for the time to be only a single-purpose account, and not genuinely interested in the project as a whole. As a larger community of diverse individuals improves the overall quality of the project, I hope that this situation changes soon. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
First off, thanks (truly) to User:TheRealFennShysa for correcting my formatting on my sub-page. I wasn't aware that the two formats made a difference, I was just trying to make the page visually look better without actually affecting something. But as far as everything else, what User:Who then was a gentleman? should have done, instead of changing my sandbox, was to ask me to do so, which he did. When I asked why (a legitimate question as to what the difference was), he did not respond and simply changed my page. That was when I changed it to the other format. User:Cobaltbluetony, I will accept your tier-2 warning. However, I feel that User:Who then was a gentleman? should accept his. Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A sandbox, even in userspace, is not a userpage. Edits to sandbox articles intended to improve the draft articles are not vandalism, and should not be treated as such. Given the amount of real vandalism plaguing this project every day, we take false accusations of vandalism very seriously. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

When you say "this project," are you referring to all of Wikipedia, or just my film project? And I understand the difference between the sandbox and the userpage. However, I didn't before, and that's why I placed the warning. I realize that I don't fully understand the guidelines around here yet. I'm trying to make the site a better one through my edits, honestly. I'm not trying to (as people believe with The True Victory) use Wikipedia as an advertising space. I'm not trying to get back at User:Who then was a gentleman? with my warnings. I just want people to respect me, and when I am constantly flooded with a sea of generally negative comments, it doesn't make me want to help out around here. Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to all of Wikipedia, as a single, gargantuan project that will never be done. ;-) Please don't mistake constructive criticism for negative comments. Perhaps we all need to be reminded to not bite the newcomers, but we hope you'll react with more questions and less rebuttal in the future. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll admit that the rules were apparently violated here. When the original incident occurred, I was not aware that the different formats made a difference, and that's why I did what I did. I understand that (at least, under US law) ignorance to the law doesn't make you immune to it, but that's my excuse. And just one last question, if I were to vandalize a user's sandbox or userpage or whatever (which I'm not going to do, but if I did) and I were considered a "regular" around here, that wouldn't make me immune to it, right? I could be "templated" just like any newcomer, right? Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You need to stop trying to insinuate that the edit to your subpage was vandalism. It wasn't. If a regular *had* actually vandalized a page, appropriate steps, including template messages, would be taken. But no vandalism happened here. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
TheRealFennShysa, please assume good faith. The tone starting to change here, for the better. Please? Thanks. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If your edit appeared to be vandalism, an editor unfamiliar with a user's history might jump to use the template. But being a bit more shrewd, another editor might use a personal message to find out what's really going on. The rules stay the same, but the templates are not necessary. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not trying to, as User:TheRealFennShysa says, trying to insinuate that the edit was vandalism. Forgive me for getting angry again, but as I stated before, I PREVIOUSLY thought it was vandalism. That was the way I understood things at the time. I now know that that is not the case. And User:Cobaltbluetony, I did use a personal message, but my message went unanswered (at least, my question to him remained unanswered). Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not implying that you needed to use a personal message; please read only what I've written. And forgive me, but the only two edits you made to Who then was a gentleman? ([1] and [2]) were from the template {{uw-upv}}. If you sent him a message elsewhere regarding this I doubt he saw it as readily as he would with a user talk space message. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The correspondence occurred on my talk page, and he replied to parts of my questions. And sorry, when I read your previous message, I thought you meant that I should have sent a personal message. Hopefully this won't happen again, but before this all began, I must have misunderstood the rules. I tried to enforce them, but apparently they weren't the correct rules. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"You must crawl before you can walk, grasshopper!" ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Haha, nice. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Monknav

No, they can be listed in the nav box if they are not main characters. However, a new section in the box must be made for them, such as Recurring characters. Ophois (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

monk dates

if you have an official site that says they will all air together then use that source as i cant find it right now....the ign source isnt valid though Grande13 (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if you have seen them all over it shouldnt be too hard to source, or maybe they changed their mind and decided to split the season after all Grande13 (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Pointer Pride Marching Band

Sorry, but it reads like an advertisement for the band, and has no evidence or assertion of notability. (My little sister was in marching band in West Tennessee, and I know how hard those kids work.) I've nominated it for deletion as a non-notable organization. I'd advise putting maybe 5% of this material in the high school's article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That's regional, not national. WP:CLUB is not that broad; on that sort of basis, every little Irish Dance school could claim notability if they send a team to Nationals. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC) (Irish dance dad)
I see. (BTW, Irish dance is awesome) Maybe the WP:CLUB rules should be re-written... it makes it sound like you can create articles over pretty much any organization at any school. For what it's worth, the band doesn't compete in Florida; they are invited by Disney every three years to play at whichever park is there (I always forget). I suppose that's still not notable enough, but oh well. Would it be okay to post parts of the article on the school's article? Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Already been done. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kevinbrogers/Sandbox/Van_Buren_High_School_Marching_Band

Hello, Kevin,   Thank you for taking the time to contact me about this article proposal. As it stands, the article is not suitable for publication in the main article space. The claims of notability are not clear per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and the references are insufficient, for the two following reasons:

  • The first reference is not from a third-party reliable source. It is from the school itself, and one could easily stipulate that the school and its marching band represent the same entity. At best, there is a clear conflict of interest and so a neutral presentation is not really possible. We usually only use primary sources for verification of data after a subject has passed the notability criteria through independent secondary sources.
  • On that note, the second source is a personal web page and therefore not a reliable source.

  Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Until we have at least two independent verifications of the band's notability, the article will most likely be shot down. Try using Google] or Google News searches to find local or regional newspapers that discuss the band in a non-trivial way. If you cannot find such sources, the article may not be suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia.

Alternatively, you could make a submission at Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

Kind regards - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 02:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

White Collar

Kevin, USA includes recurring characters in its character profiles. You need a good source that she's a regular versus a recurring. All I've seen is that she's in two episodes, and she was credited as a guest star this week. Right now, that trumps a character profile that doesn't explicitly identify her as a regular. Drmargi (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. I personally think she'll end up being one of those characters that they will credit as a guest star for a couple seasons, and finally promote her to regular status, but for the moment, she isn't. I missed the very beginning of this week's episode when they listed the guest stars, but I checked it on the official page, and saw she was listed under the characters. I guess that isn't saying much... Monk lists about 8 characters, when there are only 4 regulars. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. Is adding a recurring characters sub-section okay (after she's been on multiple episodes, of course)? Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


The White Collar facebook page describes her conversion

www.facebook.com/whitecollar?v=feed&story_fbid=130895204142

The Hollywood Reporter page describes her conversion

www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i27b2ea26515fca07879f763001bae3cc

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.190.107 (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Monk charater's spelling

Thank you for correcting the changes i made to Benjy/Benji Fleming's name. In the Monk book "Mr. Monk and the Two Assistants" Sharona's son is referred to as "Benji". I realize that the author of the book is not the same as the creator of the show and therefore the spelling of his name. There are more sources that spell it Benjy; thank you for changing the spelling of his name.

Orphaned non-free image File:Covert affairs.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Covert affairs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Royal pains cast.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Royal pains cast.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:InPlainSightSeasonTwoDVD.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:InPlainSightSeasonTwoDVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:InPlainSightSeasonOneDVD.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:InPlainSightSeasonOneDVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Old Monk Cast.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Old Monk Cast.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Kevin -- thank you for the barnstar. What a thoughtful thing to do! You made my day! Drmargi (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Monkandnatalie.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Monkandnatalie.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Burn Notice articles

I doubt discussing it would do much good. I don't agree with the way you've formatted, but I have no intention of reverting or fighting you on it. As you said, it doesn't make much of difference really. Aside from that, I really don't use the Burn Notice articles much anyway so we may as well leave it as is. No sense getting into an edit war over such a small thing. :) SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Covert affairs 2.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Covert affairs 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RoyalPainsSeasonOneDVD.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RoyalPainsSeasonOneDVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Psych Vandal

It's the same guy; 205.125.135.30 is 208.92.184.171. Same edit history, even the same dates with that history. Keep it in mind if you get to Amin before I do. KnownAlias contact 16:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The WP:FEED backlog

Hello, I see you made a request at WP:FEED a long time ago, but have continued to be active on Wikipedia and made good edits to the encyclopedia. Since you have posted on WP:FEED in the past, I would like to suggest that if you want please try and help out at the page, as we have a massive backlog. It'd be really great if you provided some advice to other, new users on their articles.

To do this, you'll just need to take a look at their article, which they'll post the link to, and maybe see what perhaps can be improved, like adding sections, references or links, much like you would do with any other article, except you are giving feedback rather than making actual edits. After getting some idea of what needs to be improved, you just need to tell them briefly underneath. It's really simple but incredibly useful to new users and their articles, and helps to overall increase the quality of these new articles.

I hope you will at least consider, thanks. Please send me a message if you have any further questions. Thanks a lot! Chevymontecarlo 13:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kevinbrogers. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Psych cast sources

Honestly, I don't know if we need to have a source for every guest cast addition. It makes sense based on the policy on sources but I'd have to go double check the TV MOS to be sure. I was tracking an IP with problem edits of the "remove existing sources to replace with unsourced info" variety that had been hitting the season five page all day so I just kept removing it. Thanks for digging up a source for the guest cast for that episode, either way. Millahnna (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback granted

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Please be sure to warn vandals properly (see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I will. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I've given you the reviewer right as well. See WP:REVIEWER for more information. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Declanrandpsych.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Declanrandpsych.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This also applies to:

These were removed from List of Psych characters for violating WP:NFLISTS. Please do not restore them. There is already a cast photo at the top of the article, and it is not necessary to depict all characters individually, as this fails WP:NFCC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mr. Monk Gets Hypnotized

The article Mr. Monk Gets Hypnotized has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This episode of Monk (TV series) fails to met the GNG or the interpretation of it given in FICTION. TV plot articles like this also fail to meet the specific definition of WP:IINFO#1.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Fæ (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Episodes of Monk worth writing articles for

Do you have any ideas on episodes that would be considered notable to have their own articles?

The ones I was thinking should have articles are:

DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Monk articles to have individual pages

All of the others are good nominations as well.

Others I would add to the list:

That sounds good.

  • "Mr. Monk and the Panic Room" plot written. Trying to find something related to production. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask what the new Season pages you created are about?

I was just curious. I mean, I know you are creating links for the episodes, but what are they for? Also, with regards to the deletion discussions for "Mr. Monk Gets Hypnotized", "Mr. Monk and the Astronaut" and "Mr. Monk Goes to the Dentist", I would say they are worthy of keeping.

DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevinbrogers/Archive_1&oldid=1138907252"