User talk:Duggy 1138/Archive 4

Tranquility

I have never seen an acutal copy of Tranquility: Armegeddon, so I can't say for sure what the official title is. My source gave me "Welcome to Tranquility: Armegeddon", and that is what I went with. I will try to find out for sure. Jimtrue (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

This has gone on long enough. On at least three separate and unrelated occasions you have ended up fighting with User:Timeshift9 over edits to his talk page. You also, I note, have a section in your talk page archive to this end. This behaviour needs to stop now. You don't have any reason to cross paths with Timeshift9, as you primarily edit comic book articles and he primarily edits political articles. Further actions in this regard may see you blocked by an administrator. Orderinchaos 11:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably using Australian slang wasn't the best approach. The best definition of "slap somebody one" is, I guess, "to tell someone in a direct manner that what they are doing is wrong". What you were doing that was wrong was edit warring with a contributor on their own talk page, which you did not only on 23 November but also on 10 December and again today. Neither of *those* occasions had anything to do with election talk pages. It's a pattern of behaviour that suggests you are almost stalking him, watching his contributions and waiting for a moment like this so you can jump in and edit war on his page - a tiny bit disturbing to the neutral observer, to say the least. Also, I think you misunderstood my meaning regarding comic books/politics in the above. All I was meaning was that you should pay less attention to someone who doesn't edit in areas that you edit in. Orderinchaos 11:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note, for the record, that making repeated personal attacks against me on my talk page is probably not the best way to handle this situation. It won't be me making the block decision, as I'm involved, but it doesn't mean that the person making that decision can't take the rather strange allegations you've made against me into account. Orderinchaos 11:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing archived discussions

When someone archives a discussion asking people not to edit it, it's polite not to do so. Your edits at User talk:Orderinchaos indicate you believe the opposite. Please respect other users. That's a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, and users who do not respect it may be blocked. Thanks. Hiding T 14:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I was in the middle of replying to a couple of threads when he archived. As such, I inadventantly edited after he archived. (I replied at 13:23 & 13:27, he archived between 13:24 and 13:26)[reply]

There would have been an edit-conflict screen to alert you that such archiving had happened had you started commenting before the archive happened. Had you started editing after the archiving occurred, then you have disregarded the ~~editing~~ archiving. Yes, you apologised after the fact. However, either way you look at it, you ignored an archive on someone's user talk page to continue discussing something with another user. Therefore I can not see how it was an accident. Hope that helps. Hiding T 14:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you're trying to accuse me of.
- I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. I have already made my point. Please respect other people's wishes. If you feel you are doing that, then there is no problem. Hiding T 14:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of admin misconduct

You appear to be accusing Sarah and/or Orderinchaos (and any other admins who have had previous involvement) of admin misconduct by showing favouritism to support policy violations.[1] This is a serious charge to make against their integrity. I suggest you either remove the comment, if you are just unwisely "sounding off", or take it to WP:AN/I if there are any grounds for it. If the former, I suggest you are more careful in future. Tyrenius (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed the warning by Orderinchaos above on this page.[2] The comment I referred to in my previous post was made after that warning. You are treading on thin ice. Tyrenius (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a ban; it was a Block. You broke WP:3RR, so what do you expect. Editors are allowed to remove talk from their own talk page if they want: see WP:TPG. You are not allowed to replace it, when they do. I have just read the thread User_talk:Orderinchaos#roxbo_and_duggy. You are misrepresenting the phrase: it was not "slap me around". I've no interest in continuing this conversation when you do that kind of thing. I suggest you listen to advice when it's given to you, instead of arguing against it at great length. Tyrenius (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note from your post that you are always right or have the benefit of the doubt:

"Sorry, I honestly remember it as "Slap him around" looking again, it wasn't..."
"I notice that he inserted a clarification higher in the thread 15 minutes after I addressed it."
"I will say that [I] can see why I didn't see it at the time of the discussion."
"I feel that I've been trying to clear things up."

And others don't:

"I won't say he deliberately hid it"
"The stuff on OrderInChaos page, I feel is more a result of the fact that Timeshift removes comment from his page."
OrderInChaos's bias in Timeshift's favour

I suggest you rethink.

Tyrenius (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask you to report Orderinchaos. I asked you to remove the comment OR to report him if there are any grounds. So far you have done neither. I don't think you have any grounds. Please do not post an answer on my talk page. I suggest you get on with contributing content to articles. Tyrenius (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I was asking if I had grounds enough. You don't think so, so I guess it's not worth reporting him. Is there a place where I can, without annoying you, find what constitutes grounds of harrasment by an admin so I can keep an eye out for that behaviour from him in the future.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link to Wikipedia:Harassment in the heading of the thread two posts above this one! Whether by an admin or another editor is irrelevant, except admins should not use tools if they are in a content dispute. I've said what I need to. I am not going to be further involved. Please do not post about this on my talk page. Tyrenius (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Films based on board games

Category:Films based on board games, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/{{{2}}}#Category:Films based on board games|the category's entry]] on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – • Supāsaru 18:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of the 2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike on television

I have to ask you...what have you done to this page? The tables need serious reworking, one citation is missing proper templates, the formatting is all wrong, and I'm sorry to say that I don't agree with the new format. One large table seems much more simpler, as it is easier to locate information on a specific show.

Also, at first glance, I see huge amounts of shows in the "ungrouped" section, while I am still left confused at what the point of "unaffected shows" mean, since there is no information. I suggest that a serious re-working be done to the article in order to avoid confusion to any readers. Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know that. I was a big editor there before, but went and worked on other projects. I agree with a new reformatting, but this particular one is confusing, has minor faults in some locations, minor reference issues, and the "ungrouped" section needs to be completely dissolved as soon as possible and listed in the other sections. I'm just pointing out my views on the current status of the article. I could help you, but like I said, I'm really horrible with tables...and I don't understand completely what the new format is.

For example, when it says "Unaffected", you should write a short paragraph explaining what the section is about, and what types of shows fall in that category, right before the table. That would help a lot. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I am utterly horrible with tables...so could you add these to the charts? These can be removed from the Ungrouped section since the description pretty much says it all.

Back to You from Fox can go to the postponed section.
K-Ville from Fox can also go to postponed
Law & Order from NBC can go to postponed
iCarly from Nickelodeon can go to the shortened seasons section

Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, whatever you see fit. I'm going to continue to see if any other shows can be integrated into the charts rather than the ungrouped, though probably not today. Great job on the reformatting so far! --haha169 (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I'm taking a break, probably read a book by Steve Wozniak...and then come back. --haha169 (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. During the strike, I was constantly deleting and udnoing edits by fanboys who added shows that were irrelevant to the strike, or fixing problems because editors didn't know about the "rowspan" function on the table. Now, its quite a bit quieter. --haha169 (talk) 06:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Every time I edit, I see that you've done a lot to this article. However, I sorta want to see what's been improved, so could you please leave an edit summary? Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll double check your work. Thanks for doing so much to the article! I appreciate it. --haha169 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! You did a great job. I'm serious, that table must have been cut in half two times! Just great. Nice use of citations... In fact, I'm giving you a barnstar for the repetitive work that I dropped out of, half-way!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thank you for your amazing work on this article, with much boring and repetitive work such as correct citations, moving shows from one table to the next, and your amazing knowledge with wiki-table codes! You accomplished something that I dropped out half-way through! Good job! haha169 (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. The history shows that you didn't do everything, but you started the major revisions, and was the sole editor until a few weeks ago. Anyways, good job. I think most of the unaffected shows can go, excluding the ones specifically stated on the WGA site. And...er, I guess we're done! (Or, I should say "you guys", since I was absent for a good portion of last month). --haha169 (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Ontolodoxical characters

Category:Ontolodoxical characters, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Characters resulting from Ontolodox Paradox

Category:Characters resulting from Ontolodox Paradox, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A word to the wise: Please do not create additional variants of this category, as it could be construed as disruptive editing, which could potentially result in a loss of editing privileges. You've been here on Wiki long enough that you should appreciate the concept of collaborative editing, as contrasted with combativeness. I hope you will take this to heart. Sincerely, Cgingold (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Name comment

Why? and also Why would you tell me this? I'm looking forward to your reply Thuringowacityrep (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future now past

What are the defining characteristics for Category:Stories set in future now past? The category name is confusing, and I can't determine if its real catchphrase or just something useful at the moment. Please enlighten me. —Scouter Sig 03:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Characters who are their own ancestors

Category:Characters who are their own ancestors, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has opened a discussion on renaming this category. But there's no guarantee that everyone else will agree that it should be kept, so if you care about keeping it I would suggest that you participate in the discussion in a productive way -- i.e. skip the snide remarks, etc. Cgingold (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Stories set in future now past

Category:Stories set in future now past, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Nohansen (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of the 2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike on television‎

Apologies if my revert was wrong, but wasn't it POV from your side? Mspraveen (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that "no one watches CBS anyways" as a reason for deleting content: Isn't it your point-of-view? Mspraveen (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it the strike by the Writers Guild of America? Hence, I feel that the article corresponds more to the TV channels and viewership in United States than what it is in Australia. Don't you think so? Mspraveen (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though Australian television is discussed here, CBS comes under mainstream United States television and how the strike affected its screenings is a worthy mention, isn't it? If you were to remove CBS, then shows like The Amazing Race and Big Brother have to be removed as well. You shouldn't/will not be doing so because these are well-known shows and partly due to these shows, people watch CBS. It isn't about whether CBS is watched in Australia or not because it is a US-based show and the article is primarily discussing the strike which had obvious effects in US-based shows. Think about it. Mspraveen (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I believe only 7 episodes were ordered, because they saved it for mid-season from the beginning. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great! --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrested Development Taskforce Invite

Hey there. I couldn't help noticing that you appear to be interested in Arrested Development. I am interested in setting up a Arrested Development Taskforce to improve articles related to Arrested Development. At the moment I am just looking for people who are interested in joining. If you are interested in joining, please add your name here or contact me on my talk page. Thankyou, Joelster (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for expressing your interest in the Arrested Development Taskforce. It has been set up and can be found here. You are welcome (but certainly not obligated) to join. Thanks, Joelster (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]