User talk:Hannibalormaybejustrex/Archive 3

Fair use rationale guidelines

Please see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and stop removing legitimately placed tags. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to remove legitimately placed tags without rectifying the problem specified by the tag, as you did here, it will be treated as vandalism and you may ultimately be blocked for the behavior. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please state the problem with the images in plain english using proper sentences if you don't want the tags removed. Catchpole (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The template added to each use already does that. That you can not understand it is not the fault of the project. If you insist on removing them without correcting the problem, I will request you be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, you've been directed above to Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Read it. If you still don't understand, ask. Don't just go around deleting the tags. Failure to understand is not a reason to violate our policies. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am perfectly aware of what the policy says. I just get annoyed when I see illiterate boiler-plate text added willy-nilly across thousands of articles, communication is the problem here. Catchpole (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you're aware of what the policy says, then you know what the deficiencies are in the lack of adequate fair use rationales. Rather than remove the warning tags without fixing the problem (which will result in blocking ultimately), fix the problem and then remove the warning tag. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Television episodes

If you believe that all episodes deserve articles, feel free to contribute to the discussions at our various policies and guidelines (WP:EPISODE specifically). If you have issues about any specific ones, feel free to bring it up on their talk pages. Randomly bringing them back will not help your cause. TTN (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EPISODE is under dispute as per the talk page where a number of editors have objected to the way it has been used to remove valid content. Catchpole (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want those to be reinstated, feel free to view the thread on WP:AN/I. Reverting them is not going to do anything for you. TTN (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slowly bringing them back isn't going to help you either. You have dozens of paths that you can take to try to "solve the problem." Please use one of them. TTN (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not improving the articles. You are trying to keep them up by adding bits of trivia. If you can add production and reception information as shown in Homer's Enemy, then they can stay. They'll return to redirects sometime tomorrow if nothing like that is added. TTN (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not improving the encyclopedia. Wikipedia won't shut down tomorrow. Why are you in such a hurry to remove valid content? Catchpole (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am, and most people that aren't too deeply involved with the fan aspect of fiction to realize that it also has an encyclopedic side agree with me. The large backlog and the constant flow of new "information" requires a good amount of speed. I will eventually be able to slow down when we reach a level where people can easily manage fiction. TTN (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes. Here's one quote from a respected wikipedian - "It is certainly inappropriate to cite this guideline as a blanket excuse to delete huge swaths of episode (or any other type, for that matter) articles". Catchpole (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say everybody? There are always exceptions to the rule. And I really cannot see how one can be a respected editors while ignoring policies. TTN (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policies? WP:N and everything that stems from it are only guidelines. Catchpole (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to WP:V (it specifically talks about using third party sources to build articles, so that is just one of the ways), WP:NOT, and Wikipedia:Five pillars (not an actual policy, but the first pillar is completely relevant here) to name a few. And please don't try to pass off guidelines as nothing. Unless challenged, they should generally be followed as you would follow any policy. This has gotten rather off track, by the way. TTN (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly encourage you to get involved at the RFC regarding merging EPISODE into FICT and WAF. Your opinion counts. Ursasapien (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Command Decision (Dad's Army episode)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Command Decision (Dad's Army episode), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command Decision (Dad's Army episode). Thank you. Jack Merridew 11:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) 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) 18:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jena 6

The phrase "new stealth racism that lives on in the United States" is POV. I left the NPR and BBC references when I edited the article. I tried to rephrase the paragraph to give it a more NPOV description. What did I remove that is wrong? I'm not being rude or anything, just really wanting to know. Thanks. --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If that wording is allowed, then shouldn't the argument that reverse discrimination is also part of the town's story in relation to the case? BTW, I fixed the wording in the last sentence...added "was." See, I can be helpful. ;)--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 05:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom restrictions at Jewish lobby

I just thought you should know, the Jewish lobby article is under a 1RR restriction; that means that anyone who reverts the article without discussion, or more than once a day, will be subject to sanctions. Your recent revert, in addition to inexplicably returning grammar errors to the article, removing a cited and relevant definition of "Jewish lobby" from B'nai Brith Australia, and inserting material about a different subject, was also unaccompanied by any Talk: page discussion of your revert, and thus was in violation of this restriction. I would hate to see you blocked from Wikipedia for violating this rule, so I wanted to make sure that you were fully aware of it. Cheers! Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: This Will Destroy You

You say "sources exist, use them." Can you enlighten me as to what you mean and point me towards these sources? Redfarmer (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the sources mentioned in your nomination. It would be heplful to incorporate them into the article. Catchpole (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's two album reviews from their 2005 EP. Nothing since then. Two album reviews in 2005 are not enough to establish notability. The band itself has received no coverage at all. Redfarmer (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google news search would indicate coverage within the last week. [2]. Catchpole (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's one more album review saying their new album is crap, two announcements that a band by their name is playing in the city soon (trivial coverage), and one band in an interview saying they played with the band in a show (trivial). Redfarmer (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break a Leg (sitcom)

WP:WEB - The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

The other sources were defunt leaving only one intact source. Also did you consider that it fails several other policies like WP:WEB # 3, The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Or that it could be a WP:COI as the creator of the article seems to match that of the director, creator, and lead actor in the small webisode series? Mkdw ^talk 09:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of temporary injunction

Hi Catchpole, I noticed you redirected an article about a television episode [3] , and I am letting you know that there is currently a temporary injunction that applies to all editors[4] while this arbitration case is open. The injunction was enacted on February 3, 2008 and it reads:

"For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction."

The arbitration committee would like all editors to hold off on such actions while the case is open. I will also notify you when the injunction ends. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hodge/ Hoxha

Thanks! I thought it was too out-there to actually be in an RS, so I didn't check... Relata refero (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 1200

Do not undo the results of AfDs without discussion. This is disruptive. Take it to DRV. One has been opened. Black Kite 21:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Weir

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Mike Weir, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Thank you. Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources for more info. -- No Guru (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if the use of a template bothers you. You can always delete it from your talk page. I understand that you might not like the policy regarding self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs as it relates to sourcing material on biographies of living people but I think it is a very good policy. Cheers. -- No Guru (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Albums

I noticed you recently voted in AFD concerning an unreleased album. I invite you take part in the conversation here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Unreleased_albums any input you have would be appreciated. Ridernyc (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Friends LOE

I reverted your restoration of the season synopses because I feel that before we duplicate verbatim information from the main article, we should probably discuss it first. I suggest you open up a discussion on the talk page and indicate whether your intention is to exactly duplicate the information from the main article, or move the information from the Friends main article to the LOE. FYI, I moved the synopses into the LOE int he first place, before excising it after I realised it was in the main article. the reason for this, obviously, is that duplication is not advised and that for maintenance (sourcing, copy-editing, etc...) the info be provided at a single source. But I look forward to any opposing view you may wish to advance. Cheers! Eusebeus (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

small world

We appear to agree occasionally [5]. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biruitorul 2

Hi. Can I gently encourage you to reconsider your choice of words? Cheers muchly. --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End of the temporary injunction

The arbitration committee have reached a decision in this arbitration case and the temporary injunction related to television episode articles and television character articles has now ended. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Son of Stimpy, thank you for alerting me. I was unaware of the circumstances, and have restored it. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spider (solitaire)

Please do not put these links back in; one is a spamlink, and the others are inappropriate, per our standards for external links. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stimpy episode articles

That one was recreated after deletion, so I'm not inclined to restore it. After examining the deletion discussion, I doubt a deletion review would come out the way you'd like. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Stimpy

The injunction is over. Take it to DRV if you wish it to be undeleted. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 01:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

Per this edit, you claim you reverted my merge and redirect based on "No consensus". As you know, the injunction against standalone articles that consist solely of in-universe details has been repeatedly and explicitly reconfirmed at the ongoing discussion at WT:FICT by practically all parties concerned, a point I have made directly a number of times. To claim "no consensus" appears to me to be a disruptive gaming of the system since there is an explicitly stated consensus that this material is best merged to list articles. I have discussed my actions and pointed interested editors to the explicit consensus policies and guidelines that explain them. I do not necessarily demand that you agree with my actions here, but I do expect a decent explanation of what comes across as a churlish reaction. If you wish to argue against a merger, then I at least expect you to justify it on the discussion page with explicit reference to our policies, backed up by an actionable plan to bring this material up to a standard whereby it conforms to praxis, so that editors can see how you plan to redress what is currently inappropriate content for Wikipedia. I might add that this is the kind of behavior that triggered the arbcom case, which explicitly enjoins editors not to engage in tiresome edit-warring. If I have erred in terms of my reading of our policies on fiction, then your revert may be justified. I feel I have made no such error and you have not bothered even to inform me how you think I have. Eusebeus (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Talk:House (TV series) regarding characters of House showed little support for your proposed mergers. Catchpole (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 4 editors who recently weighed in, including now User:mattbuck, you are the only one who seems serene in the face of the existing content and the ongoing discussion at WP:FICT wrt WP:NOT#PLOT. Also, this summary hurts. You undid my edits, you don't bother to raise the issue with me, you simply assume that everyone is as zealous as you are to retain information which consensus policies - which you don't even bother to contribute to - discourage. How is that proxying for TTN? That's a bad faith assumption. Let's work together on how we can best merge the information to the LOC and what kind of detail we wish to include. Surely that's a better solution than gainsaying me and steadfastly reverting me on articles that clearly run counter to our policies and guidelines. Eusebeus (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation?

Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input

I suggest that we take the question of fictional House characters to mediation. Can I ask you to weigh in on which form of mediation you would prefer? Thanks much. Eusebeus (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful. Eusebeus (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible editing

Act like a responsible editor and read the oft-linked WP:RS, WP:V -- fan sites (such as TheForce.net) are not reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to editors to use their judgement about reliable sources. In my opinion theforce.net is a reliable source to verify details about the Solo girl. Adding a reference to the article is a (minor) improvement and removing the reference is a destructive act. Please use the article talk page to articulate what part of the reference you disagree with. Catchpole (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:V -- a Wikipedia policy that states self-published material (like a fan site) does not meet the project's criteria for reliable sources. This is pretty clear cut and not one of the elements subject to editors' opinion/interpretation. --EEMIV (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites and blogs of that sort simply don't qualify as reliable sources. Period. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that simple. They qualify as reliable sources for their subject matter and for themselves. Catchpole (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you site an element of policy that substantiates this vague claim, and a community discussion that reflects consensus for this subjective claim? --EEMIV (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the mailing list, there have been numerous discussions on reliable sources there. Here is a quote from an arbitrator on a discussion about using Usenet that sums up my view "What count as reliable sources depends very much on the subject matter." [6]. Catchpole (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you site an element of policy. --EEMIV (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Articles with sources are an improvement over articles without sources and this reflects the spirit of the verifiability policy. The reliability (in the wikipedia jargon sense) of the source is dependent on context and is a subjective distinction. Catchpole (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks! You forgot to sign. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Ta. Fixed. Catchpole (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Demob (band)

A tag has been placed on Demob (band), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Demob (band) is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Demob (band) saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Sgt_Pikachu5 12:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. Okay. They removed it. I was just doing my job. Sorry. Sgt_Pikachu5 12:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still under deletion review. You recreated it too early. Why did you recreate it early? Sgt_Pikachu5 12:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's generally no problem with recreating a stub of a speedy'd article if you're confident you can rectify whatever the problem was. It certainly appears that this might have been an overzealous speedy deletion in the first place. ~ mazca ^talk 12:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. See Wikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Catchpole (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PROD

I am neither confused, nor ignorant of the rule. But it seems that you have not read the edit summaries. May be you can refer to this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.22Unrealiable_prodders.22. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bender

What exactly is the reason behind that reversion? Pretty much all of the information you added back is complete original research. The edit itself has nothing to do with a deadline; the information just does not belong per policies and guidelines. The part about being based off Troy McClure is just to show that the edit was based upon a site wide consensus of what kind of material is appropriate. TTN (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]