User talk:Padillah/Archive 1

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


Hello Padillah! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdeckenξφ 12:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

Still Crazy

All I can say is - use the welcome template above, don't be afraid to click the 'Help' link on the left, and take a look at other movie pages for hints: things like This Is Spinal Tap, The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, Jurassic Park - and look for featured articles about films. Things like Blade Runner, Casablanca, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, and V for Vendetta are all FAs. Don't ignore talk pages - they can be very useful! Good luck. —Vanderdeckenξφ 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange Days citations

You might not be aware of this, but fact tags and citation-needed tags are for individual statments within well-ctired works, to be sugical requests for citations. One thing that Wikipedia does not condone the practice of dropping in uncited information and leaving it for someone esle to cite. If you can't cite it, you don't add it.
As per that, I am removing the info again. Please do not add it unless you are prepared to couple it with reliable citations. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If that were the case then there would be no use for the {{fact}} tag. All the information in Wikipedia would either be cited or it wouldn't be in here... right? What Wikipedia does condone is edits made in good faith and you running around deleting edits just because they are not cited is not assuming the person was acting in good faith. I very much will revert that edit and any others you make on the basis of citation. If you feel the need to have someone cite something use the flag. That's what it's there for. Padillah 13:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think you have mistaken the fact tag to add whatever information comes up. That is an inaccurate assessment of the information. Yes, we do assume good faith in edits. We do not condone the perception of lazyness. If you want the info in, take the time to cite it appropriately; otherwise you run the risk of having folk thinking you are adding blithe speculation to articles. I wouldn't want to see that happen. and unfortunately, I have to remove the uncited info again. I ask that you consult an admin before reverting me, as the information has remained uncited (by you or anyone else) for quite some time. Without citation, it cannot remain. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If it was there for so long why wasn't it flagged? I have no issues with dissuading laziness but I do have an issue with removing data that you ask to be cited. How is anyone supposed to see that request? How are editors supposed to clean that up? If it had been tagged for 6 months and was subsequently removed that would be different. You are summarily gutting this article, you've removed over 13,000 bytes in your last two edits. If you want to discourage lazy how about chipping in and writing some? I will be speaking with an admin regarding your treatment of this article. Padillah 19:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for removing the translation... I understood that you wanted to see proof for the name, but I also think the placement of the "fact" tag right at the start of the article could be confusing to readers. We should probably go with the idea that the name should be referenced before it is restored. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 18:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It was the best I could come up with. I know, and the Notes section says, there are different transliterations for Japanese names and while Nakamura is a pretty standard surname, Hiro is technically a "nickname" so there's no telling what his full name is. I suppose the heading should be "Hiro" Nakamura. Any transliteration needs to be cited unless we want to settle for a "nominal" rendering. Like assuming most women spell the name Nikki, whereas our heroine may very well spell it Niki, or even Nicki. So, nickname, nominal rendering, or citation? I vote Nickname and citation. Padillah 18:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, realized that. Do pardon me, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit counts

Hi. Go to this link: [1], enter your user name and you will get a very complete report of your (or another's) contributions. --Kevin Murray 16:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Bolshevism

Could you do some cleanup there? Thanks. --Ludvikus 23:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion

Where do you do that? And where do I find the Guidelines for it? Thanks. PS: What's a "troll" in Wikipedianism? --Ludvikus 04:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the words I used (Administrator Abuse) were a link to the page that walks you hrough the process. The plain-old link with no dressing is: WP:ADMIN#Administrator_abuse.
And a "troll" is someone that tries to start arguments. It comes from a popular fishing term where you bait your line and troll, or drag, your line along just waiting for fish to bite. It suggests that the person is just saying things and waiting for someone to "bite", i.e. argue with them. Padillah 05:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroes, Powers, Unknown/None

I talked tp TheRequimBellIsHere about the editing there, and left an explanation for the 'none'. However, please avoid edit warring, and allow others to revert if needed. Pushing towards 3RRs doesn't help either side come to an understanding, thanks. ThuranX 03:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Was I in an edit war? I didn't think I was active enough to get into an edit war in the last three days. I'll look into it, thanks. I know several of us, by name, that have each others backs: you, Ckatz, Ophios, and a couple of others so I'm kinda mystified. Thanks for the warning. I'll have a look. Padillah 20:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection removal

It was a mistake on my part. I was creating an example of a section without the crufty suppositions in the powers section, and I think i accidentally snagged it. After I self-reverted from the example, it was apparently reinstated. My apologies. i agree that the article could use a bit of peace. It will also inspire the occasional users to apply for an account. It also means that they can be held to 'account' for their ill-behavior. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


I could direct your to WP:ARCHIVE, where you can learn all the ins and outs, but a basic - and very good example of an archive can be found at Talk:Hermione_Granger. I particularly like it because it has some extra archives set up in a no-wiki. You will want to copy all of the text for it, which you can also see from the example I have set up using your account name, instead of 'Hermione Granger'. the actual archive shows up as a redlink because there is nothing in it. In fact, you could use this as your own (moving it to the top of the page) unless you had something fancier in mind, in which case, you can just remove all the text. For most article discussion pages, this will do as well. What you see on my Talk page is the result of a lot of copying of styles from other users' pages and a great deal of html tweaking.
I hope that helps somewhat. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)



Archive 1