User talk:DanTD/Archive. November 2007

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

Hello

Hey, I came upon your userpage, and found something cool out. We both live(d) in Whitestone at one time or another. What part of it do(id) you live in? I lived near the strip mall (Genovese, Key Food), in a 7or8-story apartment building at the corner of Clintonville and Cross Island's service road. (151-05 Cross Island Parkway). I found that interesting.Mitch32contribs 16:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Mack Trucks

Where did you get the date for the R-Model as 1965? I got 1966 from:

~ WikiDon 23:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I sent an email to my contacts at Mack, we'll see what they say. I am pretty confident about 1966 as the R start year. Of course it might be that old auto manufactures trick of bringing out the model in the late fall of the previous year, although truck makers didn't used to do this as badly. So, they could have been re-tooling, then the first unit rolled off the line MM/DD/196Y...???? I wish I had saved all those old Bulldogs that I had.  :( ~ WikiDon 01:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I got a reply back, and you are right, see: Talk:Mack Trucks ~ WikiDon 18:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Episode articles

Please do not bring those back without adding information from creators, reviewers, and other applicable sources. You've been through this before, so you should know the final outcome. TTN 01:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, non-trivial information from the creators, reviewers, and other applicable sources is what would be reliable. I suggest TV.com and the wiki for the show if you would like to type about the episodes. TTN 01:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm recommending that you transfer over to TV.com to write about the episodes, not use it as a source. It is a good place for someone like you. TTN 01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, I request that you refrain from bringing those back until you provide information directly from interviews, commentary, reviews, and other sources. Without that, those articles will never have a place on this site. Why don't you just transfer over to the wiki that was created just for this purpose if TV.com is not up your alley? TTN 03:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
If there are no sources, then we do not have articles on them. As WP:V (a policy) states: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." That is why you need to move the information over to the Kim Possible wiki, so you can edit it freely. TTN 03:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about the wiki, not TV.com. If neither work for you, I do not understand how you can access this site. Please see WP:RS and WP:V for the criteria for a reliable source (something user edited like TV.com can only be used for a couple of things for example), and WP:FICT and WP:WAF#Secondary information for what counts as real world information. Everything is based off of those, so you have no argument there, and I have kept a constant standard, so it would be nice if you could point out how exactly I have changed it. TTN 03:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Copy and paste the actual articles, and transfer over templates and images as you need them. If you need to upload images again, so be it. Again, I have not set this up; these are standards that all articles on this site must meet. These standards are held within our policies and guidelines. TTN 04:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a different site, so they won't look exactly the same. You'll have to live with it. I am not the problem; the fact that the information does not exist as of yet is the problem. Providing sources would make me go right away, but you have not done that. For now, let's establish that you need to either live with the wiki and TV.com or live with nothing, as these do not belong here. TTN 04:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
If that happened, that means that insufficient sources were provided, or that the sources were merely filler inserted by fans. Neither of those hold anything up. If an article has a sufficient amount of sources, and the information from them is not trivial, then the article deserves to stay. It does not have to be a popular or culturally relevant episode, though those are going to be more likely to have sources. Please understand that again: This is not just me, and the articles "targeted" are not just episodes; all articles are given a set of standards that they must be able to meet. If it is shown that they cannot meet the standards, they do not need an article. The standards for episodes require real world information, and that is that. TTN 12:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, just stop reverting them. In the end, they are going to stay redirected. These fail are policies and guidelines, fan sites fail WP:RS, and that is that. You have the fan wiki, so please make use of it. TTN 16:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot stress the following enough: My actions follow our policies and guidelines, while yours fail them. What sources? You have added external links to TV.com, which is not reliable. It is user edited, so it cannot be used (see WP:OR and WP:RS). I don't know if we'll have to redirect all of the Star Trek episodes, but they'll have to live with it also. TTN 16:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, you really aren't getting this. If real sources are not available, then we do not cover the topic. I have already explained why they cannot be used, but for some reason you are unable to understand. So please just know that any sites that you want to use are insufficient for various reasons (i.e. Both TV.com and IMBD are mostly user edited. They can only be used for one or two minor things). Please move to the fan wiki. TTN 17:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The policies and guidelines involved in this do not contradict each other. It is quite clear that all topics that cannot establish themselves need to go. If quality control is overly bureaucratic, then we would not need any sort of content policies and guidelines. If you haven't noticed, people agree with me too. This boils down to policies and guidelines at that point. The people on my "side" follow them, while the majority of the people on your "side" resort to wikilawyering and pure, blind ignorance. Feel free to chime in there, but my "side" "won" a long time ago. TTN 18:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Now, this is clearly a case of the ignorance I just mentioned. Notability requires objective evidence, so, no, it is not notable for being the first episode. There is a greater likely hood for sources, but that is it. You are not ready to fix those up, and you will not be ready until sources become available. You'll probably have to wait five to ten years for a boom in books analyzing the cartoons of today. Unless you provide sources (please read every single word of WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF at least three times before trying to argue again), these do not belong here. Please just head over to the fan wiki, so everybody can be happy. Otherwise, you are just prolonging the inevitable. TTN 18:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I expect you to leave it as a redirect until you find information. You need production and reception information, which Disney would never have. Please remember that we do not cover topics just because; if you cannot supply sources, we will not cover it. When I was still like you, I did a quick draft of a video game character, and when I actually figured out what this site is about, I redirected it to the game article. That has little to do with anything, though. TTN 19:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Very few articles have it, and very few have the potential for it. That is why they are being redirected. An episode needs at least a paragraph of each to stand alone. Those have to be from non-trivial sources, and provide non-trivial information. If it had actual reception information, it was trivial, but I'm guessing that it wasn't even that much. Please just go over to the fan wiki, and leave a link to it if WP:EL allows for it. TTN 19:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Then you're unfortunately out of luck. It's either over at one of those or nothing. Episodes can be improved in sandboxes or just from a WordPad document. You can also gather sources and put them on the talk page before undoing it. Redirecting them only gives us a failsafe for the case when the are not imroved. TTN 19:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Use User:DanTD/Sandbox and create it like any other page or article. Later never comes because the articles are never improved, not the other way around. If someone actually adds information the article can come back. You're just trying to do everything to get around that, which will not bring them back. If that episode were to have actual sources and relevant information, then it would stay, otherwise it would go. So at this point, are you still going to revert war over those, or will you try to get onto another wiki? TTN 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, they do not need to exist in order to be worked on. Also, you were not finding reliable sources; you were trying to compare events within the episodes to real world events without sources. So again, are you going to keep reverting those or are you going to settle for the sandbox (it is just like any other page, by the way). TTN 21:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You can work on a large number at once, but having a very large amount (somewhere over ten) would be overkill. Just work on a couple at a time, and you'll be fine. No, you cannot keep images. All you have to do is save the actual name of the image, and ask an admin to undelete it when you are ready to bring it back to the main space. TTN 22:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

When you add episodes to a sandbox, please comment out (<!-- Commented out part -->) images, and article categories. TTN 23:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

DanTD, I gave this advice to User:Still Calico, for the Billy and Mandy episodes, as well. I had created articles for a couple of the episodes of Iggy Arbuckle, but TTN redirected them because they were not notable. So I created an entire episode page, complete with an infobox-like list of the episodes with brief synopsises, and below that, I have made sections for the plot summaries to go into. Below those, someday soon, I plan on adding in things like goofs, notes, and external information in another section as well. I don't know what the episodes you're talking about are, but maybe this idea could apply to them as well? Wilhelmina Will 01:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, those tags? I put them up myself. I did that, actually, to protect the articles. So that the deletionists don't feel too tempted, I want to show them that I'm doing all I can to make the article contents notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia. It also encourages other users to partake in constructing and building the articles. But the main Iggy page isn't really mine, only the character list and the episode list, and the quote list in Wikiquote, are. The main page was fathered by User:Foxlad. Wilhelmina Will 02:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Like TTN said, you also could try the wikia for Kim Possible (there is such a wikia, right? If not, create it!) Fan wikias allow for articles on episodes to be mentioned, with or without external information. They also allow in-universe perspectives; they may be miniature encyclopedias dedicated to one show or film only, but they're still fansites in that respect. At any rate, I know the wikia for South Park is like this. Wilhelmina Will 03:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kim'sSneakyIdea-QB.jpg)

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Kim'sSneakyIdea-QB.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Suffolk CR 14

I recently reverted to what I wrote and added citations to back up my claims in the article on Suffolk County Road 14. Even though I live nearby CR 14 (won't say where exactly but that I'm not too far away from it), I figured I would add the citations just to verify that what I was saying was accurate and to clear up any misunderstandings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.41.214 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have posted an apology on User talk:71.183.41.214. I was wrong and you are right. I was too quick to brand what I saw as deletions as vandalism. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 02:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I always remember, CR 14 was solely Indian Head, but according to Nycroads.com's Suffolk County Routes page, it was CR 14 up to Sunken Meadow at one time, I don't know if it used to cover Harned at one time, but if it did, I don't know why they removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.41.214 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Palm Beach roads

I was wondering if you had some good data on roads (county and state) for Florida. If you need a state list, I'll be happy to give it. (I'm working on the articles for when my Floridian grandmother comes in Sunday).Mitch32contribs 19:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, just looking for info, which seems to be scarce.Mitch32contribs 19:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


Notification of Request for Arbitration "TTN, part Deux"

I've requested Arbitration regarding TTN's numerous edits to TV and other fiction articles, and included you as an "involved party" in the request. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#TTN.2C_part_Deux, and you should add a statement to the section somewhere under mine. Thanks. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


USRD Newsletter - Issue 16

I-blank.svg US blank.svg Autoroute icone.svg
The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 16 • November 17, 2007About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.O bot (tc) 23:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your note on my talk page

Thanks for your note. I am glad to be better informed. I have a bias for inclusionism, as I simply do not see the problem with more information and I have faith that articles can be improved. Thanks again, Ursasapien (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Denali Air

Thanks for the comment on this page. I think it is great to stand up for pages whether you were first editor or not! I do this too.

Procedure first: In fact I posted it as WP:PROD rather than AFD. If you are not familiar, that means you can just remove it with a comment on the talk page if you dispute. Then I would need to take it to AFD.

I am happy to take it to AFD for a discussion if we need to. To further help, you may want to look at WP:ATA. On thing there is the all or nothing part. Other airlines are not the point. You may be right that other Alaskan airlines are equally notable and have pages - or not. But whether or not the others are notable is not the discussion. We need notability for this one. And their own web site doesnt count - is not WP:RS. We need, say, a magazine and a newspaper article about this airline. If they don't exist, and there are a whole bunch of other non notable airlines, rather than debating, perhaps we can work together to create one great article on Airlines of Alaska and take care of the lot? Obina (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also part of the category drive. Glad to say hi. Anyway, let'd be bold and create a great article. There is no downside risk. I understand the feeling with wanting to "save the page" - been there, done that! Just think that aiming to create one good page is waaaay better than saving 6 pages that will never be great and may end up deleted. How about List of Alaskan Airlines for the page name? That way we can put on some airlines that are notable enough to also have their own page, plus smaller ones that are less notable. I'll look around for pages to model it on.Obina (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Page looks great. You have done so much I'll have to work hard to make it better. I'll make future comments on the pages talk page if needed in the hope other will help too.Obina (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

TNN

Do you have any ida how to stop this guy? Please contact me on my talk page if you'd like to coordinate something (anything). --HanzoHattori (talk) 04:21, 21 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) 21:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Woodside (LIRR Station)

Sure. I think the article looks much better than it did in May. If you hadn't reminded me of that article I probably would have never remembered it (but I do now). Feel free to do whatever you want with it, you've done a great job so far.   jj137 (Talk) 16:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NYSR notification

Your imput is needed into a weekly collaboration for articles under the jurisdiction of WP:NYSR. Comments are at WT:NYSR. Regards.Mitch32contribs 02:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Quinns guys.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Quinns guys.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Improvements

Dan, sorry to pipe in here (I'll X-post this to sg's page), but I note that you can improve any article at any time in a sandbox and then publish it as an article it once it has been brought up to speed to meet the standards laid out at WP:FICT, etc.... A redirect is not a deletion and there is no injunction against restoring clearly notable content. So I think you may be overreacting a little here. The problem with your eventualist reasoning is that it assumes that fundamentally most TV episode articles can be written to assert notability and provide significant real-world content and perspective. That is a rather parlous assumption, one which consensus has largely rejected. I appreciate that you feel very hard done by and that evil editors such as myself are ruining the world for everyone. You know, we try.... But the fact remains that we all welcome well-written articles on notable topics and your efforts, whenever you care to make them, will be warmly appreciated in this regard. Eusebeus 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Even Stevens wikia

Have yourself a ball. The Disney wikia is a self-claimed "collaborative encyclopedia for everything related to Walt Disney and his work". http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Even_Stevens already existed, so I just added the episode list from wikipedia. You can recreate every episode article there. I have already started by copying the pilot episode from wikipedia to wikia:disney:Swap.com_(Even_Stevens_episode). The only thing that I changed was to add {{wikipedia|Swap.com (Even Stevens)}} to the bottom of the wikia article so that the GDFL is observed (you have to do the same for every episode). You can later add (on [[wikia:disney:Swap.com (Even Stevens episode)|wikia]]) to the wikipedia episode list, like I have already done for you for the pilot episode (edit). Have fun. – sgeureka t•c 18:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)