User talk:Wikirocks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Wikirocks2)
Jump to: navigation, search

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.


Hello, Wikirocks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Rich Farmbrough, 10:06 13 August 2007 (GMT).



Thanks for the congratualtions! Rich Farmbrough, 10:06 13 August 2007 (GMT).


Unless you can get a source for every episode, the section will be almost bare for most of them, probably all of them. The reliability of Kryptonsite notwithstanding, there'd be no way we could even cite them because the announcement is on the front page instead of one of their archive pages. In a couple weeks it would be pushed off.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I answered on the talk page as well, because I didn't notice you had left a comment there as well. I agree, it would be great to have ratings for each of the episodes, but the unfortunateness of it is that it's rare to find a source that will provide those ratings for each individual episode. This becomes even more of a problem if the episode isn't in the top ten in ratings, as Nielsen Media Center's own website doesn't list them past the top ten.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: LOST Season 4[edit]

I'm unsure how adding the Canadian broadcaster of the show "stuffed up the page". Please explain that for me. Thanks. - zachinthebox (UserTalk) 19:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL No problem! Happy editing. - zachinthebox (UserTalk) 10:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

episode notability[edit]

As far as I understand it, the issue is this. 90% of episode articles consist of details that only relate to that episode (ie. summaries, cast/crew, and trivia). The 3 points against them are that the summary can be placed in the list, cast/crew can be obtained elsewhere, and wikipedia doesn't like trivia. If you can make a quality article that goes beyond this, something that proves the historic value of that episode, it gets to stay. Pilot (Smallville) is one episode where this happened, but I'm pretty sure all other episodes of the show were nixed.

As defense of the article, you can say that an episode is important because "this is the episode were they find the father" or "this is the episode where they get captured by the others", but unless you can demonstrate that that episode has importance beyond the tv series that it's a part of, it just gets a space on the list.

Not all episodes can get that level of detail, which isn't something to be disappointed about. Just means that we need to work harder on the ones that are that important that they can be brought up to that level of quality. Hewinsj 19:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's cool, I'm glad to help. I've been catching up on the discussion over the past few days and just figured it out myself and I know some of the parties involved don't state the situation as easily as they could. Originally I thought all episode info was being removed including the lists, but it looks like it's not as bad as all that. I also see where your coming from, and I don't disagree with you. I'm just trying to avoid the situation as best as I can and to maintain a good level of data retention when someone starts getting a little overzealous in their deleting. Hewinsj 06:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice talking to you too. Hewinsj 15:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If you miss an episode of TV, Wikipedia is not supposed to be your substitution, no matter how many times that it actually performs that duty. Plots are only there to provide context. If we have no real world information to talk about, then we have no need for a lot of context. You can summarize an episode in a few sentences and hit all the key points, you just won't hit every single event that takes place. Smallville (season 1) has plenty of plot information for each of the episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
First, the longer the summary the more the risk of copyright infringement. We'd basically be publishing a free copy of a network's show, one they paid money to create and got paid money to have advertisements for. It's equivalent to stealing their business. That is why plots are basically used under the fair use license, and that we keep things brief. We have a guideline on summarizing information as well. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. We're trying to provide encyclopedic information, and a plot summary is not encyclopedic. Arc significance is largely original research unless you can provide reliable sources that can explain that significance. In such case, those sources are probably doing more than just explaining the significance of an episode, and probably help to establish the notability of said episode anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
To add to Bignole's explanation, I would suggest reading #2 of WP:IINFO, which says that plot summaries should be used as part of a larger picture, to provide background to real-world context. Very few episode articles manage to do this, having only the long-winded plot summaries and nothing to explore its impact in the world in terms of production, reception, etc. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 15:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your username[edit]

On your user page, you claim that "Wikirocks" was taken, however this does not appear to be the case. You might want to look into changing your username to Wikirocks, WikiRocks, Wiki rocks or Wiki Rocks at the account request and username change pages in the Wikipedia namespace. –thedemonhog talkedits 04:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting edits to Talk:Cassie[edit]

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space." per official policy "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons". - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. & Mrs. Smith[edit]

You deleted the entire bit I wrote about the differences between the rated and unrated versions of the movie.

You moved the section, turned into "trivia", then removed it.

That section was very informative. Can you please explain why it was removed?

Thanks. TabascoMan77 (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "annoyed", really. I just wanted to know how it was classified as "trivia" and then removed altogether. I will keep it for as long as it's deemed necessary. I was going to see if I could source most of that since most of it appears to be original research but there are several Wikipedia pages out there that have all that stuff as part of an informative article. TabascoMan77 (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but…[edit]

I am not sure if this is appropriate. –thedemonhog talkedits 06:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


just saying hi, and also it is good to know that you are verry obsesed with not poluting the air with toxick breth(aka: you dont smoke).

Drance I know 7

Centralized TV Episode Discussion[edit]

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review[edit]

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Christina Milian[edit]

According to Template:Infobox Musical artist#Label, you should "omit parenthetical dates; save that information for the main article". I hope it helps! Funk Junkie (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I looked good too, but just like you, I eventually got to know parenthetical dates should not be used in the "years active" field. Thanks, happy editing for you too! Funk Junkie (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

ref tagging question[edit]

you use the <Ref name="blahtyblah"><ref template> format the first time, and the <ref name ="blahtyblah"/> tag the next time. It's on the citation help pages. I took your question off the heroes page, it's better to ask that stuff over at Village Pump or Help Desk. ThuranX (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm not bothered by the question at all. What inspired the request about nationality and background (what do you mean by 'background')? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am of Scots-Irish descent, raised in America, educated in the US and UK. I discovered Googoosh through another user who was having problems getting that page up and running. I've since listened to her music. Not a big fan, but i can easily understand why others would dig her. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but a lot of the credit belongs to user Arash the Archer. He was really easy to work with and he did almost all of the translation work (as i do not speak Farsi). He was key to the success. i was just a traffic cop, more or less. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL! Sorry. i thought you were under the idea that I had bare-knuckled out the article from the wandering clusterf*** it had been. I agree - it looks mighty groovy now. And I guess you are right; my ego did think you were complimenting my work. Oops! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Come with me if you want to edit". - The Wikinator

Coloring my user name[edit]

I guess I lost the age 33 too old or too young? I think too may be more around 23...correct?? And yeah, yeah, yeah, I am married...I got married in Burbank CA, on September 23,, about one year and a, I dont know how to color or add spice to my username. How do you do it? Can you explain it to me? Is thgere a way to change your signature? I am going to check the preferences section and see what I find...--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)please respond on my talkpage

I figured it out. I will be experimenting with the color...think I might due a green or red...although my favorite color is silver...i dont know if that will show well on the computer...i will keep working at it--Chrisisinchrist comments and complaints here! 07:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images of living people[edit]

Yo, I agree it's a fantastic image of Bell, and it would be great to include it if we could, but WP:IUP demands that the image itself, or at least the role/character, be accompanied by critical commentary in the text. I'm not even sure that fair use is applicable to images of living people in this sense; have a look at featured articles on actors and you'll get an idea of what's required. Regards, скоморохъ 18:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Christina Milian[edit]

I have checked Christina Milian MySpace profile and it doesn't say anything about the album being called Rain on Me or a song with Timbaland and Justin Timberlake, nor producers, Timbaland, T-Pain etc. Sully1311 (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)