User talk:Tbrittreid/Archive/2007/September

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


I saw you were having trouble with the '<ref>' function. You have to add '<references />' at the bottom or nothing happens. Go figure... Cop 663 01:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Droopy.

In the lead of the article, that name is not necessary to be mentioned. "Sgt. McPoodle" is a "part" played by Droopy in Northwest Hounded Police. The character's official name at that time was "Happy Hound".

The "Sgt. McPoodle" name could be mentioned in a later body paragraph discussing Northwest Hounded Police, or in a Northwest Hounded Police article. But for the lead paragraph, you'd want to stick to mentioning official names: mentioning the name Droopy had in one cartoon as a Mountie is something of a digression. --FuriousFreddy 01:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Your note on WT:VAN

Hey, I saw your note about the dispute you left on WT:VAN. Without looking at the actual case, I'd say that this is a content dispute, not an example of vandalism (according to WP:VAN, only outright attempts to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia are considered vandalism, so just being a jerk doesn't necessarily make them a vandal). Therefore, I'd suggest going through the steps of dispute resolution. First, try to talk to them about it: leave a friendly note on their talk page and point them to the talk page of the article so the two of you can discuss it (I think you're right, both IP's are probably the same person). Politely remind them that reliable sources are required for any potentially contested factual statement and ask them for some. If you can't come to an agreement, try WP:3O or other steps of dispute resolution. If they simply won't talk and keep revering you, and you have reliable sources for the material that they're taking out, then yeah, that's vandalism. So yes, you should leave {{uw-v1}} on their talk page first, then if they keep vandalizing, {{uw-v2}} and so on up to {{uw-v4}}, after which you should report them on WP:AIV to be blocked. But note that this is only for someone who's blatantly damaging the encyclopedia, not someone who disagrees with you about what content should be added. I'll have a look at the pages you mentioned and see if I can figure anything else out. Don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need anything, I'm always glad to help. Peace, delldot talk 23:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thing after a glimpse at the histories: are you familiar with WP:3RR? delldot talk 23:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right that forging betacommand's signature was pretty rotten, maybe they're just a common vandal and I'm giving them too much credit. It's just that, not knowing anything about the subject myself, it seemed possible that they're sincere in thinking this guy's name was what they say it was. I do a lot of vandal fighting and this isn't similar to most of what I see. Anyway, if they are sincere, they'll participate in the discussion, and the two of you should be able to figure out who's right and come to an agreement (remember the need for citations: if you have some that demonstrate your point, that will strengthen your case by a ton). If they're a common vandal, they'll ignore your requests for discussion, keep doing it, ignore vandalism warnings, and then be eligible for blocking. Either way you win. At any rate, I just thought if you hadn't tried discussing it with them it can't hurt to try, that way you have all your bases covered. If you don't like my advice, you can ignore it and I'll back out of the conflict entirely with no harm done. Peace, delldot talk 21:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool, let me know how it works out. Peace, delldot talk 23:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Glad to hear it :) delldot talk 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Castellan (Doctor Who)

Thanks for the info, I've redirected the article to that character's first appearance. In future, if you want a comment about a Doctor Who article to reach a wider audience, the talk page at WP:WHO is the way to go. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't so much miss your point as sidestep it. Neither the character nor the office justify notability guidelines for having a separate article — hence a redirect to the first time that particular character appeared (as opposed to the first time a Castellan appeared). --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The article does comment that Castellan is a title and does not state that the unamed Castellan of Arc of Infinity and "The Five Doctors" is the same as Castellan Spandrell or Castellan Kelner. I shall reorder it a bit to avoid ambiguity. Wolf of Fenric 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


I'll deal with this separately. This looks like a reasonably uncontroversial candidate for deletion: it's likely that everything that can be said about the character would fit comfortably in King Kong (1976 film); moreover, it's dubious that a redirect would be worthwhile, given the relative unlikelihood someone would be looking for information by typing "Dwan" into the search box (they'd look for the film instead).

The remaining question is how to go about it. Proposing deletion is an option, but there's the small chance someone will object, reasonably or not, which would stop that going ahead. An AFD, on the other hand, would give the community a chance to discuss the article's future. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 21:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)