User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ginger Snaps Back[edit]

No problem, I reverted your editions because they were only adding typos, once you made them again I decided to wait what your final edit will be. --Seba5618 (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the typo, must concentrate harder!

I am about to edit the GS2 page which the same guy has made very messy. Hope you don't disaprove?

I was just reverting vandalism, as your edits aren't vandalism they are fine by editors more involved with those articles will check your edits. Welcome to wikipedia!.--Seba5618 (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. As you've probably seen, I've been editing the Ginger Snaps pages for some time, and do try to keep them neat, and to the point. Most people seem to approve - I've even seen reversions to my edits so I think I must be on the right track.

I'll definitely think of a name and register soon (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Katharine Isabelle[edit]

The edit removing the Place in credits, you assured me you would not remove it again until such time as there was 'reasoned discussion' as there hasn't been ANY discussion, and as you are the sole user wishing to remove the Place In Credits, I have restored them.

I checked back through the edits and found that it has been edited by several admins and a number of regular users going back to the time the bio was created as it exists now, and none of them have ever removed the Place in Credits. that show a consensus for it to remain. One person wishing to remove it does not make it consensus. (talk)

October 2008[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Talk:Katharine Isabelle. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 20:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Apologies, I removed it to stop any further confusion. I don't want to have anyone saying I have added content when I haven't. As it is a relatively trivial matter we were discussing I thought removing it would be the best thing for all concerned. (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

February 2009[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Katharine Isabelle. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you."..another Nazi/neo-fascist trick!" Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable:"Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist." - SummerPhD (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Information.svg Please do not insert your comments within comments made by another person, as you did at Talk:Katharine Isabelle. Doing so makes it difficult to determine who said what. If you must add your comments within another person's comments, please please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption, as outlined at Wikipedia:Talk#Others.27_comments. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Unhelpful edits removed"[edit]

I'm hard pressed to see what "unhelpful edit" you removed here. It looks like you changed your own prior edit to something even more POV. Then, also saying you were removing an "unhelpful edit", you pointlessly changed the link to Ginger Snaps (soundtrack) to "ginger snaps (soundtrack)". The next "unhelpful edit" you removed was actually removing the section, leaving the article with no link to the soundtrack. Then, you removed an "unhelpful edit" to title a plot summary the "Treatment" when this is clearly not a Film treatment, it is a summary of the films plot. Also, guidelines title the section "Plot" not "Plot summary".

Generally, your edit summaries seem to incorrectly describe why you are doing what you are doing. Please review Wikipedia:Edit_summaries#Recommendations. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit, where you removed a maintenance bot's dating of a tag, saying it was removing an "unnecessary edit" is patently absurd. The bot adds dates to tags on articles so that editors know how long the issue has been tagged, a necessary function.
This edit again restores your preferred sectioning. You label the brief plot summary "Plot summary" and the longer plot summary "Treatment". A Film treatment is not a summary of the films plot, it is a stage in script development, pre-dating the first draft of the screenplay. Unless there is something particularly noteworthy about this step in this film's genesis, it does not belong here. As this section is clearly a plot summary and the "Plot summary" is merely an abreviated version of this, I am editing the article appropriately. Also, your edit removing the Plot tag says "This article is NOT intended for discussion of the film". This makes no sense. The Plot tag indicates that the plot summary in the article is too long relative to the rest of the article. I did not make up these guidelines, they are a matter of consensous. If you disagree with them you either need to demonstrate that there is good reason to ignore them in this case or work to change the consensous. You have done neither. I am restoring the tag. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)