User talk:TKD/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:TKD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Empires
Empires got FA status! Thanks for your help.--Clyde Miller 23:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 4th.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 49 | 4 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey mate,
I probably did, but I suppose that section missing was better than "Brandon Routh is hott. You should respect him".
All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.77.17 (talk • contribs)
Signpost updated for December 11th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 50 | 11 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Mind helping me out again?
I've got an Afd out on Luca Brasi. The majority of people have voted to keep the article, but only give the reasoning that "He's important." However the only tangible contribution he gives is with the quote "Sleeping with the fishes". Yet people insist that he should have an entire article devoted to him, even though he has no more then two or three lines in the film and two or three scenes in all. He is a minor character who happens to have been the catalyst to a popular quote. Any information on him is or should be present in The Godfather article. He does not deserve an entire article devoted to him, especially one that cannot be expanded beyond a stub. Would you help me out and run over there and put in your two cents. Or at least explain to me why the article should be kept, either on my talk page or on the Afd. The Filmaker 21:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 18th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 51 | 18 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The Phantom Menace
I'm having some trouble with a new user (User:Venom-smasher) who has begun to make horrible significant changes to The Phantom Menace article. The changes are obviously POV and OR, they are uncited, and go completely against everything users such as myself provided citations for. Worst of all, his changes create and extremely odd and clunky format to the text. After I tried to appeal to him on his talk page, he merely reverted back to his old version again claiming that our (the users) version was POV. Mind you, this is the version that was voted through as an FA. He has violated the 3RR and pretty much started an edit war. I'm sorry that I have to come to you yet again, but I've always had trouble dealing with stubbornness among new users. The Filmaker 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am confident enough in my abilities as a Wikipedia editor to say that everything in that section is sourced. Yet he still claims that it is POV. He then rewrites the section to be biased towards a positive reaction, which I believe (personally, yes from my POV) to be insane. I have read the interview on the supposed "response" from George Lucas, and found that his response only toward critics of Jar Jar Binks, because of that, and it's content, it's not needed within the article. It belongs in the George Lucas or Jar Jar articles, if anywhere. We've asked him to discuss his points on the talk page, but has merely responded with hostility by going around in circles with arguments. All which center around his claims that the section is POV, something I have proven to him time and time again that it is not. A compromise cannot be reached because he will not cooperate. His edits are unhelpful and cannot be stopped unless he reasoned with by an admin. Deckiller has warned him of an impending block, but I don't think he's gotten back to see that he should be blocked. While it's not my decision, I think that you should block him for continuously violating the 3RR, stubbornness, and unwillingness to discuss his points that are unfounded. I suppose you'd like to warn him, yourself first. However, he's already received a warning. Isn't it time? The Filmaker 03:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you check his talk page you'll see that both Deckiller and I have asked him to discuss his changes in the talk page. He responded with what you can see on his talk page: one-sided circular discussion. Your blocking the page will most likely result in him either not discussing the changes at all and waiting for you to un-protect the page in order to resume his unhelpful changes and reverts, or he will bring his one-sided circular discussions to another talk page. Either way, we won't accomplish anything. My violation of the 3RR was in good nature. Yes, if we're assuming good faith his was as well, but my violation was in the obvious interest of a featured article well being. In other words...... no court would convict me. His changes were just too wild and poorly designed to leave up while we were engaging in pointless discussions that would not go anywhere. The Filmaker 04:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- I guess I agree. We'll have to see what Deckiller says. But for the record, I don't believe revert warring is productive. Which is why I called you early on and posted in his talk page asking him to discuss in the article's talk page. But, I guess we'll just have to see how this plays out. :) The Filmaker 05:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you check his talk page you'll see that both Deckiller and I have asked him to discuss his changes in the talk page. He responded with what you can see on his talk page: one-sided circular discussion. Your blocking the page will most likely result in him either not discussing the changes at all and waiting for you to un-protect the page in order to resume his unhelpful changes and reverts, or he will bring his one-sided circular discussions to another talk page. Either way, we won't accomplish anything. My violation of the 3RR was in good nature. Yes, if we're assuming good faith his was as well, but my violation was in the obvious interest of a featured article well being. In other words...... no court would convict me. His changes were just too wild and poorly designed to leave up while we were engaging in pointless discussions that would not go anywhere. The Filmaker 04:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
TPM
Venom Smasher should probably be blocked, since he reverted the most and is clearly only interested in edit warring. — Deckiller 14:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- You might want to watch him. He's stated that I've "left him no choice". He might begin to edit war again, I don't know. But he's obviously not interested in conversing ideas. The Filmaker 20:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please. Do something. Help me out. Reason with him. Block him. Do something. He's rude, he's obnoxious, he violates the three-revert rule, he won't listen to reason, and now he's making demands. The following sentence is to express how frustrated I am with him: He's completely fucking up my articles!
- Before you post a link to WP:OWN, yes, I'm aware that I do not own any pages on Wikipedia (not even my own user page and talk page). But I put my blood, sweat and tears into these articles and he's picking them apart and refusing to understand or even consider the possibility that he is wrong. And I just don't know what to do anymore. The Filmaker 04:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Notice regarding Warcraft (film)
I've restored Warcraft (film) and Talk:Warcraft (film). You deleted them under WP:CSD#G4 (and WP:CSD#G8 for the talk page); however, the page (when you deleted it) is significantly different from its form when it went through AfD [1]. To quote the cited criteria:
- A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process, unless it was undeleted per the undeletion policy or was recreated in the user space. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject. This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions, although in this case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply. (emphasis mine)
I'm not suggesting the article can't be deleted, but it has to pass through AfD again; zipping it through G4 is improper. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 52 | 26 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Now this is just ridiculous
I'll point out that I responded to your reply and another reply from the gentlemen (can't remember his name!) who blocked me, I'd like to continue the discussion, not because I'm trying to punish either of you but because I'd like to set the record straight or just realize what I did wrong (if anything). But I'd also like you to say something to User:Venom-smasher about his new user page, where he posted this:
- User:Venom-smasher is currently working on several articles, although his edits have drawn mostly MIXED REVIEWS from MANY FANBOYS who just don't like having their obvious POV comments removed.[2]
First, I am beginning to find this classification of my being a "fanboy" as offensive, he has simply degraded to name calling at this point. Secondly, and more importantly, the link after this statement is to my talk page. I find this to be slandering. Say what he will about my articles, he is at this point making a personal attack on me without any evidence to support. How long does this have to go on for? He is living in his own personal world where the prequel trilogy was accepted with open arms by the fan community and he is supposedly "revered" (check the user page) by "many for his efforts to clean up biased "POV" statements that plague many wikipedia articles". Mind you, he has no link for these people who supposedly "revere" him. Yet another example of him making statements that are uncited, yet accusing me of being POV in my writing. The Filmaker 03:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I don't want to sound whiny, but you warned him about the "fanboys" name calling. But you didn't mention the more important issue: the link to my talk page which I find to be much more slandering. The Filmaker 04:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you did one pass over it. My memory is failing me too. I went and checked the history for the page and the problem is that there was the whole copyvio issue and now it's sort of..... gone. I said that on Deckiller's page because it was in my notes on my nomination for it's FAC. But since you don't remember doing it, would you mind doing it now? I'm desperate as despite having at least two copyeditors go through it, it still apparently has prose problems. It's real short. Do you mind? The Filmaker 05:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Then my apologies. Like I said, the reason I said that was based on my notes from my nomination for the FAC. I guess I named you instead of the other copyeditor who worked on the article. I'll correct it now. Once again, sorry. The Filmaker 05:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Template:Fact
Please undo your edit to that page; the very change you made I tried once before, and it is known to cause problems in standards compliant browsers. The rationale that it does something good for IE6 is pointless, because it does bad things for other browsers, IE6 is not standards compliant, and (especially) IE6 is now obsolete with the release of the non-beta version of IE7. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking
Is there (and if there isn't, shouldn't there be?) a wikipedia policy regarding edit wars in which it states that in a revert war the original version of the article should be given the benefit of the doubt and left up until the dispute is resolved? The Filmaker 23:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Machinima
So what exactly is machinima? Any video created in-game? Doesn't that make most ads, trailers, walk-throughs, etc machinima? hobbie 06:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[3] Since you probably have no idea what I'm talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by hobbie (talk • contribs)
Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 1 | 2 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Your username
From whence does your username originate? A wild guess that's it's your initials. In any case, did you know that tae kwon do is often abbreviated as TKD? Just thought you'd find this mildly amusing. — Loadmaster 16:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Long story, but it's actually shorthand for triskaidekaphobia.
- But wouldn't that more properly be TKDP or TKDKP? ;-) — Loadmaster 21:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Final Fantasy
I wanted to add some important staff members and other information for Final Fantasy, but that was trivial and the infobox got cluttered up by accident when I added some more staff members and whoops, that was unnecessary information! My bad! Also, if I want to experiment to test my editing skills, I will experiment by using the Sandbox ^_^. I won't let you down, Axem Titanium, PresN and TKD, even if I use it. No Worries about that here ^_^. Thanks for the information and advice you gave me earlier, my friends ^_^. I do really like all of you and I am always nice to all of you ^_^.--Sjones23 03:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't asked you to do anything for a week, I'm itching
Since you haven't significantly contributed to Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back would you mind reading it through and then running over to the candidates for WP:GA and judging whether it deserves good article status? :) The Filmaker 04:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
MoS (writing about fiction)
In the past you have participated in discussion about this guideline, or voted in it's acceptence. There is currently a discussion about a partial rewrite of this guideline. The discussion could benefit from some more input. Thank you for your contributions. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
RE: Red vs Blue Flash section
Thanks for the heads-up, and feel free to take all the liberty you want. You're more experienced at this than I am. Thanks, mate! :) Dac 07:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Links
I'm not sure exactly what you mean about appropriate links. Polaris is listed here as a wikipedia article and they have their official site listed. There is an "unofficial RvB site" listed under Red vs Blue, which is someone's personal site. I was listing the Red vs Blue event under Red vs Blue, not for advertising, but more for information about how fans of the show can interact with each other face to face. RvBTO is in it's third year and I believe it has some merit.
I'm really unsure how to proceed from here. I understand you're a fan of Red vs Blue. Please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RvBTO (talk • contribs)
The person who created the "unofficial resource site", is one of their moderators, but is not part of their team. He created that webpage on his own and maintains it himself.
He also created the website that I was adding to the list of links. The site www.RvBTO.ca is not his personal site, but our official site for our event which is purely based on Red vs Blue.
I don't know what you would need for verification about RvBTO except the link to the official site.
Polaris used to be called Toronto Trek, it's an annual event that runs every summer just like RvBTO.
I read the "articles for deletion" debate. The comments are really rude! I guess we'll have to wait 20 years before our event gets recognized. I'm sorry if you think I'm using Wikipedia for an ad campaign. I work so hard on it every year, I really just wanted to be able to see it in something I consider to be a great world encyclopedia instead of in the newpaper and on the web.
If you are interested in coming to the event at all, please let me know, and maybe we can clear up any issues of validity.
Thanks for the advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RvBTO (talk • contribs)
I would like some time to work on it if possible. Thank you.
I'm holding a meeting on January 12th and can discuss how to proceed with my executive committee.
I'm happy that you're a fan of the show, because you'll be interested to know that this is the biggest fan-based event for RvB anywhere in the world. Rooster Teeth actually contacted us this year to set a weekend aside for them to attend so that they can confirm with us early. It's also Burnie Burns' favourite event and he sends us different members of his crew every year. This year we've made the request for Geoff, Matt and Joel. Nico (Trocadero) is planning on attending again and might bring his band with him this year for a full performance. I hope that you can either attend the event yourself as a fan, or officially as a representative from Wikipedia. I guarantee that any fan of the show will enjoy the weekend we have in store. Thank you again for the advice.
RE: Red vs Blue image
I understand that the copyright tag issued to it was wrong. But there was no copyright. What do I do if there is no copyright? HaloPwnage 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 3 | 15 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks again for fixing vandalism to my userpage. The same IP address left a rather rude message on my talk page a few days back. Strangely enough, two other IP addresses from a different network than the former left the exact same message on subsequent days [4] [5] , a few weeks back. I wish I knew what this was all about (even if it is little more than childish vandalism).--Drat (Talk) 08:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)