User talk:DirectRevelation

Links for Myself

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/ http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/industry_news/2007_Nov_27_wga_writers_survey

Rocky

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Rocky, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--DreamsAreMadeOf 01:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus reached on article, see Rocky discussion. DirectRevelation 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation[reply]

November 2007

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Writers Guild of America. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Also, please don't use misleading edit summaries. Rjd0060 05:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary not intended to be misleading so I added lenghtyy item in discussion to go over Rjd0060's concern. DirectRevelation 06:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation[reply]

RE:Writers Guild of America

Good idea! You shouldn't just delete stuff like that. I, personally, see no problem with the Org Labor portal tag, as the WGA is a union...I think. As for the external links, I don't know why you wanted to remove them. Maybe you explained in the talk page, but I haven't read it. - Rjd0060 06:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Southern California Supermarket Strike/Copyright Violation

Great job! Thanks a lot. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way! Glad to see someone new putting his hands on the project. Just in case you wondered, you can find a list of the rules of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I'm sorry not being able to hang much around lately, but if you need any help, just ask me on my talk page :) (Oh and by the way, you don't need to sign your edit summaries, since your name and the timestamp appear beside it on the history tab!) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Writers Guild of America

Hi Erica/Fang Aili

Thank you for cleaning up some of the items in the WGA article. This article has experienced a lot of deletions and undos without much explanation in the Discussion tab and I've also been guilty of that at times.

The addition of the Disambiguation flag didn't fall into that trap though as a lengthy post is in the Discussion tab from 11/2 without objections. While the article is certainly not FORMATTED as a Disambig page, the SUBSTANCE is exactly that (in my opinion).

Do you agree or disagree? Either way I would welcome your thoughts in the WGA discussion tab.

Thanks! DirectRevelation 18:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation[reply]

Hello! Dab pages are for pages that are not encyclopedic articles. They're a navigation tool. I can see where you're coming from though -- the WGA is really two entities. But I think that more could be written about WGA, so we should keep it an encyclopedia article rather than a dab page. Does that make sense? Also, people clicking on WGA are looking for information about WGA, not necessarily WGA east or west.

Regarding the talk page--people don't usually post to the talk page unless there's really something to hash out. Minor stuff is usually just fixed without comment. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the superfast reply! A good point of contrast might be the Painters union which has a national structure with locals in New York, LA and other cities. Readers are indeed looking for information on the WGA generally but there's no such organization; just two small stand-alone groups with similar names. People are either using it as a Dab page or incorrectly generalizing as a result. That's what makes me wonder if the topic is inherantly flawed (rather than just one of many articles needing work) but I guess time will tell. Thanks again for your thoughts.DirectRevelation 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation[reply]

WGA

Hello! That was indeed the correct place to voice a concern about the WGA category. Thank you for doing so! I have responded to your concern on the same talk page. Best, Paul 06:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Writers Guild of America strike

Meh. Think nothing of it. I overreacted as a result of WP:EUI. For a current event topic, the article is in good shape: informed discussion and no revert wars to speak of. Thanks for your contributions and keep up the good work!—Twigboy 14:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The "second" strike by the WGA (as questioned at my talk)

The strike that is looming over at CBS News is a separate action on a separate contract with the news division. That contract, IIRC, expired more than a year (2?) ago. It affects the evening news and the local newscasts if CBS owns the station (not the affiliates, such as the station in Scranton, but the owned & operated stations such as the one in New York). In addition, the all-news radio stations owned by CBS are in the WGA-CBS contract. Not sure, but I would presume the newsmagazines and The Early Show are also included. Obviously the newswriters find this time ripe for getting their own publicity.

As for a naming convention, we need to reasonably explain the subject to the readers' expectations. The entertainment strike is the strike. I think to be succinct, the second strike could be best titled 2007 CBS News writers strike. (The division is called CBS News, so the space is deliberate. There is also no consensus on writers with or without an apostrophe at List of strikes.) The way I have proposed it, it is clear to show it is newswriters employed by CBS News, and articles are split on identifying with the union, industry or the employer (whatever is most identifiable). The entertainment-industry writers strike is probably OK as 2007 Writers Guild of America strike, because the bulk of the union is involved. It should then carry a hatnote, {{otheruses4}} to point readers to the newswriters strike.

If that fails to pass with editors, the backup plan is this: Disambiguation at the current article title, with articles at (entertainment) and (newswriters). But I would push back before conceding that one.—Twigboy (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, DirectRevelation! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]