User talk:Frightwolf

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

X-Men: The Last Stand[edit]

Thank you for your comments on the talk page regarding the spin about positive reviews for the film. I was feeling besieged by the sorts of people who use insults, accusations and threats instead of reasoned talk. I'm grateful, and I hope you'll enter an opinion at the straw poll on that page. Kind regards -- Tenebrae 21:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not being bias - I wish I could remove pop-culture on the other SP episodes, but they are just inside of the rules. If you think that your edit was relevant enough, then by all means add it back in, and I'll leave it as such - I'm just doing my best to keep as much OR and the like out :) ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The main problem I, as well as many other Wikipedians have with it, is that it's not encyclopedic. You have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of random trivia facts. I recently removed all the goofs from every episode, as, although some might find them interesting, they are nonetheless not relevant to an encyclopedia. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

More Crap Cultural references[edit]

Hi there, thanks for the invite to talk. The thing is the first rule of Wikipedia is Verifiability, which is a hugely important rule, which says that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." So the point of that is that it doesn't matter how "true" something is - or even its level of truthiness :) - the point is, if you can't back it up with a reference and verify it, it can't stay.

So with all due respect, I do see your point - the SOuth Park pages are particularly rife with unsourced O.R., but that doesn't mean we can turn a blind eye to it either. I try my best to remove O.R. when I can, but it can be relentless. In any case, please don't take it personally i always assume good faith. I removed the telephone piece again, but i also removed all the other cultural references that aren't verified - if you

follow the link you'll see that the king of kong and little britain references have been confirmed by the studios themselves in their FAQ. Perhaps if you ask them about the Guiliani thing yourself they'll answer it in the FAQ as awell, and then there'll be every right to re-include it. Please feel free to pop over to my talk page any time if you want to discuss this further. peaceWarchef 07:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

regarding readding comments[edit]

Just to explain a little further from my edit summaries [1] [2]: While it is a policy I disagree with, we have a policy which says that users are allowed to remove comments (even legitimate warnings) if they want to, whether they have responded to them or not, and regardless of their reasoning for doing so. There are very few exceptions to this rule. Readding comments, therefore, goes against policy, so regardless of the merits of your comments, and of his comments, it is recommended that you don't re-add it. Does that make sense now? --Dreaded Walrus t c 18:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense, but it seems so backwards. If you're going to say, "You've trolled, so I'm removing the comment," you should be able to back yourself up. He hasn't and is either ignorant to "trolling" or is trying to fool people into thinking that it is trolling. And if you look at the Sep 2006 edits, he peeved the creator of "The Invasion" with his rapid-fire deletions, even though he was invited to discuss them. I don't get what is wrong with this individual.
--Frightwolf 13:59, 4 November 2007
I just thought I'd point out, in case you didn't spot it, I've responded to the message on my talk page, too. See User talk:Dreaded Walrus#Once Again. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Again as stated by Dreaded Walrus, a source has to specifically support a claim. Links like YouTube and Dailymotion do nothing to support claims such as fans had grown tired of it and saw it as a stale concept. The issue here is NOT whether Steve Austin, "defected" and joined the Alliance is a fact that can be supported by a source. The issue here is whether The storyline is considered a flop is a fact that can be supported by a source. Why? Because that’s what the entire section is about!!! This has to address both sides of the story not just one point of view. Unless these issues are corrected the section cannot be added per WP:OR. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others. You can't use YouTube (and similar sites) as a reference here since they are illegally hosting copyrighted material. They do not have permission to allow WWE video and WWE in the past has made them remove their copyrighted video. TJ Spyke 02:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: The Invasion (professional wrestling)[edit]

The article is looking much better, and although I think it may be a high-start, it is not quite at B-level yet. Here are some things for you to work on:

  • I see a lot of citations at the end of big paragraphs. Are these citing the whole paragraph or just the last sentence? It is better to cite the source after every single source it cites to avoid this confusion.
  • With that said, there are still some whole paragraphs without sources.
  • Expand the lead. WP:Lead will provide information on how to properly do that. In a nutshell, the lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the article in a couple of short paragraphs.
  • Most of the sourcing is good. However, I'm not sure about the reliability of the Smash Wrestling site. Also, don't use Wikipedia as a citation, as you did with the WWF InVasion PPV results. Wikipedia isn't reliable because anybody can edit it. Online World of Wrestling probably has the InVasion results to replace them.
  • All of the citations need to be formatted. The {{cite web}} template should be used. It looks like: {{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate= |author= |date= |publisher= |quote= }}.
  • It could also use a really good copy edit. I'd love to do it for you, and if you are willing to wait about a week...I will. I have finals coming up, and I should be focusing on that. In fact, I'm avoiding studying right now by typing all this out. :) If you want faster action, post a copy edit request at WPT:PW. There are a bunch of really good copy editors there that will help.

I hope you don't think I'm being hard on you, because the article really has improved a lot. Once all the above is sorted out, drop me a line, and I'll look over it again. Great work! The article isn't far off from B-class. Nikki311 02:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll get to it when I can, and I'll be sure to find some picture for you. I already have a few in mind. Also, I did mean to cite the same source numerous times (after each sentence it cites). There is a way to format the citations when you use them more than once. The first time, write out the whole thing but add a reference name to the beginning: <ref name=example>{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate= |author= |date= |publisher= |quote= }}</ref>. In the subsequent sentences where you also want to use the same citation, all you have to write is <ref name=example/> by adding a "/" and leaving out the actual citation part. One of the articles I've worked extensively on, Amy Dumas, uses this format throughout the article. Skimming the "editing" page might help you with the citation formatting. Good luck with your finals, as well. Nikki311 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2008[edit]

I give up. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


2008 Election Reply[edit]

Even know the issue is now moot, please be more careful next time before reverting changes. Consensus had been reach to organize the images as they had been until a gallery could be created. You're hasty reversion was in err. Electiontechnology (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for uploading the images and creating the gallery!

License tagging for File:2008ElectionVotingShift.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:2008ElectionVotingShift.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Background" section discussion[edit]

I noticed you occasionally edit the 2008 presidential election article. I invite you to comment and participate here. Timmeh! 02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:2008ElectionVotingShift.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:2008ElectionVotingShift.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 20:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: County maps[edit]

I will change the wrong counties as soon as I can. I currently compile the maps by going to the specific page for the election on U.S. Election Atlas and going through each state and copying their maps. If you have a more reliable source, please let me know! (From what I know, U.S. Election Atlas gets most of its data from each state Secretary of State, but I could be wrong on that.) --Supertrouperdc (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Maps at United States presidential election, 2008[edit]

Hi Frightwolf. I've looked through the edit history of the 2008 election article and found out it was you who added the interpretive maps. I have a request for you at Talk:United States presidential election, 2008. Please read it, and if you have the time, I'd really appreciate it if you'd undertake that task so the article can get one step closer to a GA. Thanks. Timmeh 01:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 in video gaming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Night. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Frightwolf. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2017 in video gaming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statik. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)