User talk:TheRealFennShysa/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:TheRealFennShysa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Star Wars Changes

Please do not remove the Star Wars Revisited notation on the Star Wars Changes section. It is not a promotional edit; promotional material has been removed. This is just the facts of a noteable edit, which has gained as much, if not more, notoriety as the cited Phantom Edit. It's source is cited and the events associated with it have impacted Fan Editing and Star Wars fan edits in general greatly; it is significant and relevant to the category it is placed under. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.59.42 (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What would be considered 3rd party and reliable in this case? Obviously, CNN doesn't often cover bootlegs. :-) But just because it isn't covered in mass media doesn't mean the phenomenon doesn't exist; it's only likely to be chronicled on fan sites, privately owned, etc. For example:

http://www.webpronews.com/ http://techdirt.com/ http://webnewssite.com/ http://www.mediapost.com/ Etc. have covered it extensively, but 'mainstream' journals, sites, etc. don't seem to have picked up the story. However, the wikiguidelines seem rather fuzzy on what makes a source 'reliable' - is there any recourse in a situation like this where the story exists but the websites covering it tend to be minor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.59.42 (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You've mentioned several sites above, but no links to actal articles. Searching for "Star Wars Revisted" on WebProNews returned no results, though - same for Techdirt, webnewssite (which is a blog, BTW), and MediaPost (search results link doesn't work). Obviously, the subject is important to you, but just because it's notable to you doesn't necessarily confer notability to the world at large. At one point, you've claimed that Star Wars Revisited "has gained as much, if not more, notoriety as the cited Phantom Edit" - however, that doesn't seem to be the case, as I can quickly find stories on The Phantom Edit in Salon, TheForce.net, National Public Radio, the BBC, NewsAskew, The LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, Entertainment Weekly again, The New York Times, Guardian (UK), [http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-8330193_ITM Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post... and there's more, but I think you get the picture... there just simply isn't the same level of coverage out there for Star Wars Revisited as there has been for the listed projects. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the links you left on my talk page. I will review them... just out of curiosity, did you leave a similar message on Arcayne's talk page? He has been deleting my comments for about a week now. Thanks again. I look forward to working on projects with you in the future. Erikeltic (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne is free to edit his own talk page as he sees fit. You were in the wrong when you removed his comments/replies on his talk page - they were not personal attacks, but accurate descriptions (based on what I've seen so far) of your actions to date. Probably not what you wanted to hear, but that's the way this has played out. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. It seems that the user in question has some 'splainin' to do. File the checkuser (remember, its the second one), and await the outcome. No sense in bringing it up any more in ANI. You've outlined your evidence against him/her rather well, and if an admin is going to take action, they will do so. File the checkuser anyway, as the ANI report can be used - even if closed as resolved - to reinforce a indef block for continual socking, If you need some help in filing, let me know. I've done a few, but I am no hotshot at them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to wait until noon (GMT-6) until the user removes the attack on his user page, and then I am going to take action. As you were involved in discovering this, I thought maybe you might want to know of impending action. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I subdivided the complaint in ANI to reflect how it became less about me and more about E and M's behavior. I updated there with the latest of the shenanigans. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Spock

I was just wondering why you restored the image on Spock, since consensus regarding fan portrayals reached dictates that particular image belongs in a "Cultural Impact" section. Erikeltic (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As there is no cultural impact section, the image is fine where it is. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lucas081094 and the CGI timeline article

Regarding your AIV report on User:Lucas081094, I blocked him for a few days for perpetuating an edit war at the article in question, however his edits could be interpreted as good faith edits. He is using edit summaries to explain his position, which indicates quite clearly means they are not vandalism. Vandalism as a term at Wikipedia is reserved for such things randomly inserting curse-words into articles, or writing gibberish into articles without cause. If there is any chance at all the user is trying to in earnest improve the article, we assume that they are. This does not mean that their edits are productive, or that they cannot be blocked for other reasons (this one was, for example, blocked for an edit war). However, please do not change the meaning of vandalism from its narrowly defined one at Wikipedia. Claiming other's edits as vandalism when they are not can be seen as trying to bully other editors into accepting your position. I am not saying that you are doing this, I am just recommending that you reserve the term vandalism for situatiosn where it unambiguously applies. In the future, if you have problems like you did with Lucas081094, just report them at WP:AN/EW where they can be dealt with properly. Otherwise, keep up the good work, and continue to work to improve the encyclopedia. Cheers... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from on calling things "vandalism" - and if this had just started this week, I'd agree with you. However, for almost three years now (here's the first try), every few months some IP editor (almost always from Brazil) or new account comes in an makes this same change, without proper citations or any discussion past "this is what I'm doing". Since the change is clearly in error, has been shown to be in error, and after so many attempts (by people likely associated with the film in question, I suspect) to push their POV on the subject, I can't see further attempts to insert it as good-faith edits. This was just the latest attempt - for what it's worth. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern about his editing. I was not aware of the background of this situation. Thank you for explaining a bit more. Understand also that in the interest of keeping things working smoothly for the Admins here, different sorts of "abuses" are segregated into different noticeboards. WP:AIV is really reserved for simple vandalism, stuff like replacing an articles content with random gibberish, or altering articles to include inppropriate swear words and stuff like that. If you have concerns that this user is using multiple accounts and IPs to be continuously disruptive, you may want to file a sockpuppet report at WP:SPI. If you wish to make admins aware of a long-term complex problem, and want to start a discussion to see about a longterm ban of a problematic user, see WP:ANI. It's not that the user named above was in the right, its just that AIV is not the correct mechanism for dealing with him; if we didn't segregate the offenses at Wikipedia it would be impossible to deal with all of them effectively, so it is somewhat important that we all use the proper noticeboards to deal with each. There are MANY ways someone can be a pain in the ass here at Wikipedia, and we need to be careful on categorizing each pain correctly so that the proper "medicine" can be applied. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, after the block was lifted, Lucas081094 went right back to inserting his incorrect information. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked for two weeks. Lets call this "strike two"... Let me know if he comes back. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

He's back - and right back at it after the current block ended... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... these guys don't give up! We may need to protect Toy Story soon, if this keeps up... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek fan productions

Hiya. Just want to let you know I'm taking this article off my watchlist -- my contributions are overwhelmingly the removal of unsourced, non-notable additions, and you almost always beat me to it :-). On top of that, I don't have much more to actually add to the article. But, if you ever need another voice to weigh in on the article's content or focus, feel free to drop me a line. Happy editing! --EEMIV (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Rick Berman Article

Please do not remove inline tags that specifically point to the talk page, and then not even discuss why you did it on the talk page. I do not appreciate you doing that at all. This entire article has been posted for review in the notice board for the biographies of living persons and I am attempting to clean it up and make it neutral. "Good enough for you" may not be good enough for Wiki standards. Particurally in regards to WP:BOLP. I'll quote:

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]

Which is from WP:BOLP. I am being very aggressive in the enforcement of these and watching them very carefully as this has been an ongoing issue for months now. My next step is to get administrators involved. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 23:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

173.81.182.46

Hey there, I seen you commented on the anon user's talk page. I would compare his edits with those of blocked User:75.108.73.219 as they are VERY close alike. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 25, 2009 @ 23:46

TMNT Airdates

That wasn't my edit first, but these prime-time dates for "The Big Cufflink Caper!" and "Planet of the Turtleoids" are valid. It's a little hard to upload the source, because of the copyright issues on one hand, and if you end up with an article full of hundreds of sources you've got way too much clutter on the other hand. I think maybe a better way to list the dates is the initial prime-time date and the re-run date as well. JoeD80 (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

VEB Film Leipzig

Added some links to prove notability of VEB Film Leipzig. --77.22.253.172 (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added new references to the article. Is it enough to remove the deletion mark? --Avb0001 (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tim Conway

So where's the uncensored version of the clip? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Right here - [1] TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. Great stuff! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek (film)

Good call on this revert. Especially since the note about Spock at the top of the section is so important to preserve. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Night Court

Hey. I re-read the article and agree with the removal of Ms. Barr's single appearance. However, I believe it's worth mentioning that Ms. Post appeared as that character once early on, then reprised the role for the rest of the series run. What do you think? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Great Mouse Detective

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I started up a discussion regarding the recent edits to The Great Mouse Detective at the article's talk page. Let's stop it with the constant reverting and come up with a solution that we can all agree on. --SilentAria ^talk 06:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding swiftly regarding this matter. I did try to explain to Hellboy10 about the sourcing and all that, and I also mentioned that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but he still persisted with his arguments. --SilentAria ^talk 18:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin, so I didn't block him - although they've completely blocked him now, since he decided to make death threats against the editor who did block him. It takes all kinds, I guess... :) TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually considered having him blocked or having the article protected, but I wanted to give the discussion a chance. And he did what now? That's just...sad. I wish he hadn't done that. :| Thanks for the comments at the talk page regardless; that article needs a lot of cleaning up as it is, adding more unsourced info just makes it worse. --SilentAria ^talk 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wipeout International

Thanks for your help in cleaning up the Wipeout International Versions sections. As you noticed one person was continually adding countries that do not have their own versions. You have been a big help in fixing that problem.

Not a problem - I'll bet that they'll be back after this current block expires in a few days tho - they're very persistent... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You called that. They are persistent but wont answer any of our comments on their TALK page. Glad you blocked them for 2 weeks. expect to see them back as soon as the block is lifted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.87.3 (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't block anyone - I'm not an admin. I just filed the report. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

From Kevinbrogers

What is your problem with me? You have undone every edit I've done. And then you go about trying to discredit people that agree with me? Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have discredited no one - tagging SPA accounts in deletion discussion is standard procedure. I guess it's just an amazing coincidence that a new user would instantly go to a deletion discussion, and only edit on things that "help" you, right when you're gettng frustrated with your inability to work with the system. As for undoing edits, when you learn what reliable sources are, and what should and should not be used, I'll stop taking a look at some (not all, as you claim) or your contributions. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for everything that happened yesterday. User:BAR1269 is not a sock-puppet, but I do know him and helped him set up an account and submit his vote. I don't think that's against the rules, but if it is, please let me know. Again, no hard feelings, just had a bad day yesterday. Kevinbrogers (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's incredibly frowned upon, and also very suspect when a new user immediately goes to a section that very few new users know about. What you did was essentially set up a meatpuppet, not a sock. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of that. In my belief, everyone should have a say, whether they were previously here or not. Sorry. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

IP trouble

User talk:208.93.182.157 is acting up again and he hasn't changed his ways. BOVINEBOY2008 01:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Some helpful advice re. a very persistent vandal

Hi! I see you've run into Bambifan101 in the guise of sockpuppet User:Hellboy10. This person is among the most persistent and wantonly destructive vandals I've ever encountered on this site and he is totally obsessed with Disney features and other juvenile-themed articles. I have created a long-term abuse page on his shenanigans which you can refer to here. If you suspect a Bambifan sock (he's fairly easy to spot), please post a notice at WP:ANI, WP:VIP or on my talk page. Good luck and please don't hesitate to contact someone regarding this ding-a-ling since he's hard-banned from this and all other Wikia and Wikimedia sites. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for cleaning up my Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem! TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Charlie the Unicorn

You're mistaken, it IS hosted on Salon's servers, which IS distribution. http://salonmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/media/video_dog/2006/may/charlie.mov - superβεεcat (I know the link is now broken, but it worked during the publication of this article, and notability is not temporary.) It always was hosted at Salon. 20:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

TOS FYI

User:Bryankreutz 77 has tried migrating the List of Super-Minor Star Trek Background Characters material to the TOS article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Added sources

Look, I added the sources and you still delete them. There are tons of sites out there that claim that these characteres were planned to appear, even the IMDB's trivia. Plus the "Who Shot Roger Rabbit" script was an early script made in 1986 the the same writters who wrote the final film. Why don't you try looking for a good source if you don't trust the ones I found my sources from?-Endor chicken —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

You added ureliable sources, or sources that do not claim what you claim they do. Further attempst to add material based on similar poor referencing will be deleted. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

VeggieTales

I am having difficulty with User talk:75.174.99.232 reverting to his version on VeggieTales related articles. Could you help? BOVINEBOY2008 01:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

a recent revert

Thx for reverting the edit(s) made by 83.70.226.124 earlier today. Feel free to continue to check various 83.70.x.x edits, as they all appear to be vandalism/nonsense related on disney articles. We're tracking a specific one here, but today's edit all appear related. Suggestions on what to do beyond continually requesting semi-protections? We did get one IP blocked for sockpuppetry, but the other requests were ignored. SpikeJones (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

SPHE vandal

I've been tracking a vandal over multiple Irish IPs which has been trying to sneak errors into various articles having some connection with Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. I noticed that you have dealt with the vandal as well, and was wondering if you could offer any help or information. If this a well-known vandal, I don't want to retread old ground documenting the case. Dancter (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Just that it's always from an IP address coming out of Ireland... don't know if it's well-known, but it's certainly annoying... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

THANKS!

Thanks for catching the vandalism to the WATE-TV article.. what was it, by the way?Csneed (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It was just that anon IP vandal who's been blocked many times over for rewriting or removing digital TV info... he was on a run again... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fan films as (not) fan labor

I started a topic on the talk page for Fan Films because I don't understand the reasoning behind fan films not being an example of fan labor -- I am more than willing to admit this may be because of my ignorance regarding fan films. Hope to hear your thoughts over there. Elatb (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

New Moon (2009 film) and Eclipse (2010 film)

Both these two articles were recently submitted for a name change. I did agree with this name change in February, however, now I am a strong opposing factor in why the name should ramian New Moon and Eclipse with the signifigant other name in the first line of the articles.

WP:NCCN and WP:PRECISION both state the title should be "terms most commonly used", "A good article title is brief and to the point", "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles", "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl."Source.

Also see WP:PRECISION. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."

However, I personally do not think we have had enough input and would like input from people who might not like these movies, or just edit them to help wikipedia out. The pages are: Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#Requested move and Talk:Eclipse (2010 film)#Requested move. Any help/input would greatly be apriciated. I am not stressing weather you should oppose/support either of these.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

On Talk:The Twilight Saga: New Moon#"New Moon"I stated reasoning to why I put the (as known as) in the article. Please weigh in with your opinion there before reverting my edit, and before starting an edit war.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Muppet*Vision 3D

Greetings. I saw you reverted the cast list someone added to Jim Henson's Muppet*Vision 3D. While I agree with the reasoning for the reversion, your rationale in the edit summary is a bit flawed. It is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that Henson provided the voice for Kermit and/or other characters in the film. The best current example of this is The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, which stars Heath Ledger, even though he has been dead for more than a year. In the case of Imaginarium, a number of Ledger's scenes were completed prior to his death. I do recall a Time or Newsweek magazine article from around the date of Henson's death stating that he was working on the post-production for Muppet*Vision at the time. Also, one of the citations in Henson's Wikipedia article does reference that he was finishing up the attraction, if not prepping for its opening (the article said "this week" at the time). In short, yes the list should be removed because it's unsourced, but Henson's inclusion in the cast list shouldn't necessarily be reason for suspicion. Just a thought ... thanks for your diligence in the various movie articles. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)