Jump to content

User talk:Joeyconnick/Archive 1

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

Welcome

Hello Joeyconnick, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Spinboy 23:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Hellions

  • I noticed you just made a change to the Hellions page where you made a link to New Mutants in the caption of one of the images. Given that there is a link to that page already in the text of the Hellions page, doesn't that qualify as double-linking? Or is image caption text not considered part of the article body in this kind of situation?

*shrugs* I've never considered image captions to be part of the body text, and link accordingly. - SoM 22:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Earth-One vs. Earth-1

Thank you for restoring the "Earth-One" (etc.) spelling on Multiverse (DC Comics). Contrary to what you stated in your edit comment, that was the standard and official way of spelling it. For some reason, John Costanza used numerals in Crisis itself, and there may be other examples where someone goofed, but that is not "how they were always referred to in the actual comics". Tverbeek 02:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your childhood memories are mistaken, probably affected by all the modern-age people who can't be bothered to type "o-n-e". Whether you believe it or not, it was spelled out as "Earth-One", and I have actual comics as my references, not vague recollections. If you think about it, hand-lettered "Earth-1" and "Earth-2" would have been easily misread as "Earth-I" and "Earth-Z". And compared to the innumerable periods written as exclamation marks, spelling out the names of the Earths several times in each of a handful of comics each year wasn't much of a burden on letterers. As for the Earths first shown in Crisis, I'd consider "4" and "6" to be a mistake on Costanza's part, just like "1" and "2" were, but if you feel they should be spelled that way in th article, go ahead. Tverbeek 11:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Phoenix

The Phoenix force may not be a little green man but it is an extra-terrestrial entity first encountered in space. I think that counts as alien by most definitions. However if you feel particually strongly about it you can remove it. Iron Ghost, 00:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

moving a page

No, when a page is moved it's not a requirement for the person who did the move to update all the pages that link to it, to point to the new title rather than going through the redirect. It would be nice if all those pages got updated by and by (by someone, or several other people), but in the meantime the redirect works fine.

The (movie) -> (film) title update is being done all over Wikipedia, apparently there was a consensus to make this the new naming standard. -- Curps 16:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


Actually, I think there are such redir-fixing bots, which some users occasionally run, but there are a lot of pages out there, so it might take a long time. -- Curps 16:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Canada Line

The Canada Line is not going to be an Bombardier Advanced Rapid Transit system like the current two SkyTrain lines. It will be built by a different consortium of companies, with wider cars driven by an electric third rail (the current SkyTrain lines use linear-induction motors instead of a third rail). The cars will be made by ROTEM. The two systems will not be compatible -- trains from the current lines won't be able to run on the new line, and vice cersa

Of course, there's nothing stopping TransLink from calling all three SkyTrain lines -- or even calling the light rail Evergreen Line a SkyTrain line, for that matter. But they won't be the same kind of system. --Jfruh 00:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian superheroes

Thanks for doing cleanup work on my cleanup work. It's nigh impossible to keep up with all the categories. CovenantD 19:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Xavier Institute Student Body to Category:Xavier Institute student body

If you look at the very bottom of the CfD page you will see this listed under Speedy Moves. Anyone can do this, I believe you just need to cut and past the contents of the old name to the new one and rhen change the category for those listed in the old to the new. At some point, this will be picked up by a bot, but you don't need to wait if you have the time. Vegaswikian 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

False Creek South Station

Please see Talk:Olympic Village Station. Thanks! — Usgnus 22:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:MetaStar still reverting Jean Grey when discussions have not reached a consensus

Hi there,

I noticed you posted on MetaStar's talkpage regarding the three-revert rule. He has continued [1] to revert the Jean Grey page since then. Joeyconnick 19:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

He's staying within the boundaries of three reverts per 24-hour period, so there's nothing I can "enforce". Try a straw poll or a request or comment. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:XMEN 03232005 0050.png

Thanks for uploading Image:XMEN 03232005 0050.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I do always put the source information whenever I link to the image as you can see the artist name and comic book "Age of Apocalypse" (the Marvel Handbook) on this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Child_%28comics%29 Do I also need to add source information to the image? Thanks! Blatantdream 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fictional heroines

Well, it looks like we have our work cut out for us correcting all the categorization that some anonIP did. CovenantD 22:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I know! People come up with the stupidest categories and then go nuts with them. Ahhhh! Joeyconnick 23:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for stepping on your edits to X-23. I was working from an slightly outdated list and didn't catch your newer edits. CovenantD 00:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem. It's hard keeping up with the crazy/useless category people. *grin* Joeyconnick 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:XMEN 03232005 0050.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:XMEN 03232005 0050.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Greb 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Joeyconnick. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Repeated edits/undos on 97 B-Line

Hey Joeyconnick, do you think we should submit a page protection request for the 97 B-Line article? The date has been changed back and forth 5 times already. Thought I'd ask you since you've been around Wikipedia longer than me. Sweetnhappy (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sweetnhappy: Hmmn... I've never done one of those. Why don't we just watch the page until after the 19th... if the (I assume) one person who is apparently obsessed with putting in the incorrect date keeps doing it after that, then we could try something more formal. I suspect, though, that once the date has passed, the push to keep miscorrecting the date will die off. At least, that's what I'm hoping—fingers crossed! 😉 —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Updating the List of bus routes in Greater Vancouver

@Joeyconnick: I'll be copying in the sections from my sandbox version as I complete them starting tomorrow (19th). Once I've copied a section over, you may update that section on the main article but any other edits should wait until I copy over the updated versions (or be done on my sandbox version). Just thought I'd let you know.
The first two (Vancouver/UBC and Burnaby/New Westminster) are done (but haven't been copied) as of this comment. Sweetnhappy (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sweetnhappy:Hmmn... I just spent the last 20 minutes cleaning up the Tri-Cities section since the recent editor who seems obsessed with Coquitlam Central and this section is, in a word, messy, so maybe you can start with the current version for that. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@Joeyconnick:Sorry about that. The Tri-Cities has been completely overhauled (due to the community shuttle renames/rerouting and the Evergreen extension). I will be copying in the Vancouver/UBC, Burnaby/New Westminster, and Coquitlam/PoMo/PoCo sections momentarily (done). Sweetnhappy (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

When I suggest using the discussion page

...I am not typing to read my own words. When you bakc and forth edit-war, you are showing a decided lack of respect that discards any sort of AGF the other party had towards your edits. Please use the talk page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi Jack Sebastian: just quoting your relevant edit summary on The Exorcist (TV series) for context: Did I fucking stutter? If you edit war this stuff again without using your words in discussion, unpleasant things will happen. Now, knock it off and head to talk. Full stop. And the source doesn't say 'franchise'.
I'm not sure how you think threatening someone else and swearing at them is a display of AGF. You were flip when you restored your change which I had reverted once (which doesn't, I'm pretty sure, constitute "back and forth edit warring") so I didn't feel inclined to take the time to launch into a long explanation of why I reverted your edit. And I'm not sure what result you think you're going to get when you order people around in the imperative voice as if you somehow have some kind of higher status than anyone else here.
The second time around, I noted that your grammar was "decidedly not fine." I get the impression you took that personally but I was honestly commenting about the grammar. The thing about grammar claims is that you'd better be really sure you're correct before you make them. Your initial edit, that I reverted and you restored, left the passage like so:
The series is based on the William Peter Blatty novel of the same name and portrayed as a sequel to the 1973 film of the same name, is part of The Exorcist franchise.
Grammatically, the clause after the comma—is part of The Exorcist franchise—is a fragment (it's missing a subject), so the sentence is flawed. Even if it had a subject, you'd then have a comma splice.
Previously, it read: The series, loosely based on the William Peter Blatty novel of the same name and portrayed as a sequel to the 1973 film of the same name, is part of The Exorcist franchise. While somewhat complex and a bit repetitive, there's nothing structurally wrong with that sentence. So, as I stated initially, by reverting your original edit, I was correcting the grammar flaw you'd introduced. When you reinstated your change, you made the same grammatical error twice.
Given you seemed upset about being reverted, I tried a different tactic and re-worked more of the paragraph, honouring your removal of "loosely" and also improving the wording while again fixing the grammar. I didn't introduce the statement about the TV series being part of the franchise which you claim is not in the source; it was there before I made any edits and, by leaving it in, one could argue I was demonstrating the very respect for other editors' contributions that you so vociferously claim I am lacking.
So at this point, I think your only potentially legit beef with me would be that I didn't do as you ordered me to, which was start a discussion on the talk page about further reversion of your edits. But that's not a legitimate complaint because the next time I edited the page, after you had restored your edit, I didn't undo it a second time—I actually respected your removal of "loosely" (even though I thought the text worked fine with it in) and did extra work to correct the grammar error you had now re-introduced. So I was both respecting your edit AND fixing an error you had made twice.
And in your final edit before leaving me this lovely note (that's the one with your out-of-the-blue swearing and outright yet vague threat), you didn't revert my changes... I assume either because you didn't want to look like you yourself were edit warring or because you'd finally caught on to the error you'd at this point made repeatedly. Instead you wiped out text you claim is in error and then tried to make it seem like I'd been responsible for its inclusion. Anyone checking the edit history of the page can see I had nothing to do with that particular claim; I just reworked the text around it so it worked grammatically.
You have now done essentially the same thing on a totally different article—I corrected your grammar mistake on the Killjoys (TV series) page here even though this time, because I saw I was dealing with you again, I provided a detailed explanation of what the error was. You reverted that correction and justified it by saying the grammar I'd corrected was part of a quotation. Anyone can tell with a quick check that it's not.
I didn't feel it was necessary to provide an explanation of your grammatical error earlier on The Exorcist (TV series) page because I thought it was so glaringly obvious that it never occurred to me someone would make it twice after it had been pointed out to them there was a problem with the edit. I'm glad I didn't, too, because I see from a quick perusal of your talk page that the kind of quick defensiveness and inappropriate aggression you've already spewed at me is your standard modus operandi and so the kind of effort it would take to give a detailed explanation (like I have here) is more than likely going to be wasted.
Please rest assured, though, I will continue to reverse or correct any changes you make to pages I watch that restore or introduce grammatical (or other) errors. You can try to threaten me by crying "edit warring" on those types of changes if you want but I'm confident when any third party takes a look, the facts will be on my side. Wikipedia is supposed to be written in proper English and it's supposed to be correct/based in fact, last I checked, so I'm not sure what leg you think you have to stand on. I certainly don't think your condescending and threatening approach is going to win you any supporters, either. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Tl;dr. You received a poor response by me after reverting twice without utilizing discussion; when you are reverted for the second time, its you who needs to realize that your edit summaries aren't doing the trick and head on over. I could spend more time pointing out how repeatedly reverting without discussion serves no purpose, and shreds my assumption of your good faith. I don't mind being reverted - I ain't perfect. But to revert more than once on the same edit and not use the talk page is pretty unforgivable. It suggests that you think you're too good to offer discussion on the matter and we should all jsut accept ypur edit. Which, as you found, never works.
Hopefully, you will take this unpleasant interaction to heart and remember that neither you nor I are the smartest people in the room, and discuss when disagreements arise. Edit summaries are simply not enough. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your comment about capitalization in the West Coast Express article

Just wanted to let you know that I saw your comment on whether "Fare Paid Zone" (or "Fare paid zone") is a proper noun and responded here. Stephen Hui (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I gather you're fairly busy so you might have missed my request for feedback on my updated, sandbox TransLink Major Route Diagram. Still looking for feedback when you get the chance. Sweetnhappy (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Van Helsing (TV series)

Hello! I dunno if Van Helsing (TV series) is on your watchlist or not, but you may want to take a look at what's going on today, and offering your own thoughts, if appropriate. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Shadowhunters list colors

Quote: Colours are not chosen for good printing results; they are chosen for good accessibility and to match promotion material colours

Per the wikis Print/export option, all articles must be printable for transfer off-line. Also light text on dark backgrounds is less readable and causes eye strain. As for matching promotional colors, it's a list and NOT some kind of cover artwork. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Moving to Talk:List of Shadowhunters episodes —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

prodcode

And yet shows like Suits, The Mentalist and Castle have the exact same thing listed on their pages as prodcode. It's good. Let it be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.164.227 (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

just because there are errors in other articles doesn't mean you're free to introduce them elsewhere. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

errors!!??

Errors!!?? Are f****** kidding me. Look at the following links and tell me that these entries have "ERRORS". Seriously, tell me that these "prodcodes" are wrong and I'll remove my edits for The Good Wife.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Castle_episodes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Mentalist_episodes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Suits_episodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.164.227 (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This is my User Talk page and you don't get to blank it; see WP:NOBAN. Remove content from it again and I'll report you. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you, Joey, for your Support vote on my X2 (film) Requested Move. Cheers. Wufan10304 (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Erin Karpluk

I understand that "best known" is unfortunately typical in bios, but it has two glaring issues;

  • It's an unsourced assertion. How is the reader to verify it?
  • "Best known" by who? It is left undefined who is doing the knowing and some may know her better in another role.

This is why I see "best known" as an unsupported weasel phrase. Certainly, it may be uncontroversial and clear cut case in some bios, but a matter of opinion in many others. But for something so totally unnecessary, why have it at all? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Van Helsing (TV series)

Heh. Actually, you and I weren't the problem there – I wouldn't even call it a "disagreement". Basically, I said, "There's some weird things going on with the way Van Helsing does main cast crediting", and you said, "Well, that's kind of why WP:TVCAST is written the way it is", and I didn't really have any better answer to that, so I kind of shrugged and left things the way they were. The issue there was the other editor, User:Pyxis Solitary, wanted a "hard" 'Main' and 'Recurring' cast sections, when there was no crediting basis for that – on this issue, I think both you and I agreed. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it seemed like it was all right in the end. I appreciate the recap, though... good to know I didn't permanently ruffle feathers... at least on that front. 😉 —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Shades of Blue (TV series)

@Joeyconnick: I don't think my changes should be averted On Shades Of Blue because these are the Summaries i found online.(talk) 14:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tnays20: That's specifically why they can't be included... they were written by someone else and they are copyrighted by whoever wrote them. Plot summaries need to be written by editors in their own words or else sourced from somewhere where they have clearly been made public domain. See also MOS:TVPLOT. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: I Found The Summaries on Imbd so would'nt that be public doamin and if so how do i cite it.(talk) 14:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Things from IMDb are copyrighted. They are not public domain. You have to write plot summaries yourself if you want to add them. Otherwise, just leave it be. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: I tried to edit shades of blue season 2 but it disappeared could you fix it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joeyconnick/Archive_1&oldid=1050372705"