Talk:Milan Cheylov
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Dispute with User:LiamNolan15212
[edit]I'm starting this discussion to have this asinine dispute between myself and User:LiamNolan15212 resolved once and for all. But mostly to have the attention brought in Wikipedia:Third opinion. I am in this useless edit war with User:LiamNolan15212, over what appears to me as a redundant subsection on the Milan Cheylov article. Not only that but the user is using a TV show Wiki as a source, which is user-submitted. I left messages on his talk page, he deletes them, I have reported him to the noticeboards, I have been ignored. Just look at his edit summaries for the article, his reasons for keeping the sub-section are little... out there: [1]. QuasyBoy 18:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, Quasy, I saw your two additions to the 3O noticeboard. The problem is that there has been no prior discussion of this issue on this or any other talk page. 3O, in general, is intended to be used towards the *end* of a talk page discussion, not the beginning. We're designed to provide one more view to help break a discussion deadlock, not to unilaterally impose resolution. I'm really not trying to be bureaucratic about this; I'm just trying to let you know that posting at 3O won't get much results in this situation, because we have nothing to do outside of adding to the discussion. The thing is that, while replying as a 3O Wikipedian, we have *no* special authority over anyone else; we are *only* another voice in the conversation. (Indeed, there's currently a debate going on about whether 3Os even count for determining consensus; the default view is that they *don't* count.) If there is no conversation, a mere additional voice isn't much help.
- Now, all this said, it seems abundantly clear to me that Liam has no intention of engaging constructively in conversation with you, judging by his (repeatedly) blanked talk page. I believe I saw that you opened a page on ANI, but have you tried Wikiquette Assistance or the edit-warring noticeboard? At this point, the problem is less the content issue and more the conduct issue, so perhaps going to a noticeboard that specializes in conduct issues might be better? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the helpful advice, Writ. I'll try the edit-warring noticeboard. QuasyBoy 17:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that 3O's don't count towards consensus, but that some 3O clerks do not want their 3rdOpinions to count towards consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
"4th" Opinion
[edit]User:QuasyBoy shouldn't be claiming that a section is added and that him and another editor is reverting over this issue, as User:QuasyBoy is also removing edits irrelevant to the section in question. User:LiamNolan15212's last edit summary indicates that it is for the greater good of the biography, which is arguably meritable as he added links. The actual problem with the section is that it was not referenced in the first place. Would User:QuasyBoy rather have the whole section removed?Curb Chain (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually this article has huge problems with sourcing: the Directing section is backed with a photo, and the remaining source doesn't look reliable at all. Not sure whether this article can stay on Wikipedia at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly is LiamNolan15212's greater good, adding a separate sub-section for the subject's work on one show when it can easily be integrated with the rest of his directing work. I'm not even a big fan of the "directing" and "acting" sections, to be honest, paragraphs can accomplish the same purpose. The 24 subsection is pushing it plain and simple. I'm literally scratching my head when Nolan uses ridiculous words to keep the sub-section like "its demanded", "imperative information" and "extensive career work" on one show, when the article is not that long, for the sub-section. And to add to the fact that he has yet respond to me on my talk page or to anyone's for that matter proves his edits are redundant and completely unnecessary. Surely someone has to agree with me here. And to answer Czarkoff's question, Cheylov is clearly notable along with 24, his other directing credits Monk, Las Vegas, Dexter, Bones, notability is not up for question here. I'm in process to adding more references, anyway, since I have brought attention to this article because of this user. QuasyBoy 17:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- You are now edit warring without discussion because as I have stated you are making changes to the article in addition to removing the section.Curb Chain (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I removed the 24 section, that same section that became unsourced once Nolan removed the 24 wiki source (which cannot be used anyway) as he did here: [2]. He basically removed it because he was warned on his talk page: [3] I simply restored the article back (plus adding a new reference) to before he added the unnecessary "acting" and "directing" sections, which made the article unnecessary longer and bare boned. I have invited Nolan to explain his edits by taking part in this very discussion [4], we shall see if he will respond here (*knock on wood*) or undo my edit, yet again. QuasyBoy 18:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is frankly an absurd endeavor. I am willing to let Quasy do whatever he pleases with the article. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fun, relevant website that is abundant with resourceful information. I have only tried to meet those standards. P.S. The reason I don't comment on talk pages is simply due to my work schedule. I find life takes precedence over petty quarrels. LiamNolan15212 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, for finally responding. Your edits are helpful to a degree, however, about 98% of the information that you add is redundant. I will continue to watch over your edits in future and if you going to edit on Wikipedia, you MUST reply in talk pages, if your edits are questioned, reverted or undone. If you had done that, this "petty quarrel" would have never happened in the first place. QuasyBoy 20:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is frankly an absurd endeavor. I am willing to let Quasy do whatever he pleases with the article. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fun, relevant website that is abundant with resourceful information. I have only tried to meet those standards. P.S. The reason I don't comment on talk pages is simply due to my work schedule. I find life takes precedence over petty quarrels. LiamNolan15212 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I removed the 24 section, that same section that became unsourced once Nolan removed the 24 wiki source (which cannot be used anyway) as he did here: [2]. He basically removed it because he was warned on his talk page: [3] I simply restored the article back (plus adding a new reference) to before he added the unnecessary "acting" and "directing" sections, which made the article unnecessary longer and bare boned. I have invited Nolan to explain his edits by taking part in this very discussion [4], we shall see if he will respond here (*knock on wood*) or undo my edit, yet again. QuasyBoy 18:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- You are now edit warring without discussion because as I have stated you are making changes to the article in addition to removing the section.Curb Chain (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly is LiamNolan15212's greater good, adding a separate sub-section for the subject's work on one show when it can easily be integrated with the rest of his directing work. I'm not even a big fan of the "directing" and "acting" sections, to be honest, paragraphs can accomplish the same purpose. The 24 subsection is pushing it plain and simple. I'm literally scratching my head when Nolan uses ridiculous words to keep the sub-section like "its demanded", "imperative information" and "extensive career work" on one show, when the article is not that long, for the sub-section. And to add to the fact that he has yet respond to me on my talk page or to anyone's for that matter proves his edits are redundant and completely unnecessary. Surely someone has to agree with me here. And to answer Czarkoff's question, Cheylov is clearly notable along with 24, his other directing credits Monk, Las Vegas, Dexter, Bones, notability is not up for question here. I'm in process to adding more references, anyway, since I have brought attention to this article because of this user. QuasyBoy 17:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)