User talk:Triste Tierra

On Nuno Noguiera

Even though you very likely meant well, you shouldn't blank pages of information. Insert ^{[citation needed]} - tags instead or see whether they fill a Speedy Deletion Criterion. The actor doesn't appear to be notable at all (or even real, I don't know since I haven't been watching CSI), so I requested speedy deletion on the article. But anyway, thanks for your effort, and happy editing! Kotiwalo (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the user who keeps adding them. Keep up the good work reverting CSI vandalism! Kotiwalo (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. It might be helpful to check the vandal's contributions page every now and then. Special:Contributions/Csiforeverlover Kotiwalo (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, you could post user warnings on the vandal's talk page. Note that if the vandalism is severe or continuous, you don't have to progress stage by stage, and in extreme cases there's the only warning template. If the vandalism continues after the last warning, report the vandal here. That way the admins can deal with the problem. Note that sometimes vandals remove warning templates from their talk page - it's best not to put them back, and removing them means that they have read the message - if the unconstructive editing continues, it is very likely that the edits are malicious rather than incompetent. Yours truly, Kotiwalo (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please.

{{help me}}

I am requesting someone, admin or not, to instruct me as how to request semi-protection on pages. I do realize this is not something that is requested lightly - and know it doesn't stop all vandalism. But would like to know it so I can ask when I see pages being heavily vandalised. Thank you very much. TristaBella (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you install Twinkle, a set of tabs will appear along the top of the page when you are viewing it. One of them has "rpp" on it. If you click that tab, a dialogue will come up with options for you to select and fill out. Once you have done that, Twinkle can send a request for you automatically. If you don't want to do that, visit WP:RFPP. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About CSI

Hello again! I recently noticed that there is a WP:WikiProject that aims to improve and maintain articles related to CSI. They don't have too many members yet, and I'm sure your effort and knowledge of the subject would be appreciated. Check it out here. I hope you find it interesting! Kotiwalo (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Out of Time (CSI: Miami)

Hello Triste Tierra, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Out of Time (CSI: Miami) - a page you tagged - because: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 04:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please (again)

{{help me}}

I am having some difficulty understanding something. Suddenly blogs and Twitter pages are being used as citations, without verification the blogger or Twitter user is actually reliable themselves (many of these just say "confirmed on such-and-such's Twitter page"). We all know anyone can blog and Twitter - so I feel it's something Wikipedia must address. And some rules need to be posted about how exactly it can be determined these are valid citations from the actual sources they purport to be.

PS - Also, is a web page that would have been a valid citation and okay to use - if it was still there. But it now has been removed without so much as a Google cache to refer to. I do not believe this is a reliable and citable source as it stands, but another user is trying to use such pages as verification of personal information of fictional characters - and I promised to leave it alone until there was an admin answer on the subject.

Thank you. Trista TristaBella (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, blogs, personal websites and Twitter pages are not verifiable sources, even if their prevalence is increasing. You can remove contentious material that is sourced as such, but it's not as critical to do so for a fictional character than for a biography of a living person. If you have some specific pages you would like me to look at then let me know. --Step hen 04:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, they changed WikiRules AGAIN

No witchiness felt :) Wikipedia changed, AGAIN the rules about what kind of blogs are and aren't okay. I agree that 99.999% of fan sites aren't okay, but some of them were once CBS run wikis/blogs and then handed off so ownership and 'proof' becomes seriously jacked up. This is, in part, why I'm on an extended, and now certainly never coming back to full-time, wiki-break. Citing sources, yes, but verification becomes so inane that there's no point in posting anything.

Ugh. NOT NOT NOT mad at you, mad at situations. I know that the episode names (and birthdays) were once Canon. Hell, I'm fairly sure that the book, "CSI Companion" has most of that too (I don't have my copy around, it's in a box somewhere...). And yes, I know that everything from Grissom and Catherine's birthday to Brass's Pre-CSI life, gets changed. That doesn't mean it wasn't, once, accurate information. If you really want to cry, go try to reconcile the backgrounds for any superhero (try Hawkman if you're a masochist). They come up with a definitive background, then they change it in a story a week later. So where do we draw the line? Frustration. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct book source is "Ultimate CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" which has the character profiles from the old CBS site. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hee Haw "new" episodes

I just put in a new edit about RFD-TV finally airing episodes of Hee Haw from a latr season. I wrote to RFD's president a few weeks ago asking when they would stop airing the same 6 to 12 episodes, and received back a reply (very quickly to his credit) that new episodes would begin airing on 9/20/09. I have this e-mail, and will be glad to put it up as confirmation of "new" eps airing. I just do not know where. Anyone who has advice for me on this, I will be glad to accept. However, I ask people to refrain from snotty replies (i.e. WP:TROUT) for an honest attempt at good faith editing with good and accurate info. I'm trying to do this right, and while I am by not a total newbie, I am willing to admit my inexperience in some areas of Wikipedia. So please, do not bite a "rank tyro" (been here a while, but don't know everything) for trying to do things right. Messages here are just fine, as my personal e-mail is not accessable at work. We cannot log-in at work either, so I sign things to let others know this. All the best, TristaBella (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Blogs

So far the guidelines say that blogs, Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter are not reliable and should be removed.. so that's what I'm doing until something else comes along and if they don't like it they can go to Wikia. He got his information from AllThingsLawandOrder (which is a nice fan blog I must add) about the forthcoming episodes of Law & Order: SVU. AllThings usually gets that information from Neal Baer's twitter page. He tweets future episodes and the dates (like this). Well I'm sure the episode titles are correct, but the dates that they will broadcast are subject to change (just like the beginning of this season). NBC controls when the episodes air, not Neal. Therefore, we should wait until they are listed on TV.com, TVGuide, etc. MGfan created an episode page, which he got all the information from IMDb (copyright violation) and only source (no secondary sources). Plus the episode wasn't notable enough by Wikpedia guidelines. Why some TV shows have a page for every episode and some don't is beyond me. lol.

I'm actually fairly new (just started last month) and am still learning. I haven't really got into the "bad" of Wikipedia, yet. lol About the IP edits. Some IP edits are really good and even help with vandalism. However, there's probably more "bad" than good. Oh and when you do report an IP and they get blocked, it's only for a day or so. Then they are RIGHT BACK doing the same thing, so you have to go through the process of reporting all over again. I think Wikipedia should have a limit of how many edits an IP can do at a given time. Hmm, where do I put that suggestion so it can be heard from the "higher ups"? Lol --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 02:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IP edits

Speaking of IPs, there's some I need to report. But why bother when they will be back in a few weeks doing the same thing over and over. I just roll them back on sight. If it gets to server I will report. How's the proposed deletion for CI: Season 9 going? --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 05:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law & Order: SVU Season 11

Triste, how come you are proposing deletion to Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 11)? What sources/citations needs to be removed? It cites, TVGuide.com and The Ausielo files, which is part of Entertainment Weekly. I personally think that cite of Twitter is justifiable, because it is showing what schedule was intended by the showrunner (Neal Baer), but obviously did not happen. In other words, it's not being used to predict new episodes (I've already removed that in the past.) :-) --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 06:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Problems with Citations

I see what you mean about the possible connection between the ip and the user. I went ahead and procedurally nominated it at WP:AfD for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 9). If the user removes that deletion tag, they can be banned. As for the user removing the PROD and not making changes, that is, unfortunately, within the boundaries of policy. Any user who disagrees with your PROD and its reasoning is permitted to remove the tag to indicate that the PROD is not uncontroversial. They do not necessarily have to make any changes to it if they feel the article is already within policy guidelines. If you ever have this issue again, I would take it to AfD to get a clear cut answer as to whether the article should be deleted or not.

As for the ip and the user, we should keep an eye on this for possible sock violations. Redfarmer (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Triste Tierra. You have new messages at Discospinster's talk page.
Message added 23:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Triste Tierra. You have new messages at Drmargi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]