User talk:Trust Is All You Need/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Trust Is All You Need, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! – sgeureka ^t•c 17:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stargate SG-1 characters‎

Hello. Undoing someone's edits is not helpful unless you leave an explanation in the edit summary. My explanation for reverting your edits was that your edits removed several sourced paragraphs that aren't and couldn't be present elsewhere on wikipedia per wikipedia's rules on notability, and that a short character summary is already present in Stargate SG-1#Cast. What is your position that would make a switch to lists the better option? – sgeureka ^t•c 17:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list is suppose to be a short summary of the different characters, - According to what rule? The Featured character lists Characters of Smallville and Characters of Carnivàle do have quite long summaries on some characters, especially on those that cannot support their own article. (see below)

the Hank Landry section was long overdue + you can get that information when ever you want, it won't dissapear. The new setting to the list gives it more / better order. - Sorry, I don't understand. The Hank Landry section was long overdue for what? I know that I can recover information, but if someone makes major changes that are opposed (like now), the old article version takes precedence until a (new) consensus is found. I think the table is harder to read than the sections, so I don't agree that the new setting represents a better order.

Why can't you make the HL page now and expand it later? - Because Hank Landry once had his article, and I researched him in many sources but could only find information of three paragraphs worth. Any new information would be just plot that shouldn't be added per WP:UNDUE. But an unexpandable three-pagragraph article on a fictional character can never become a Good Article and thus shouldn't exist, so he was merged into the character list.

– sgeureka ^t•c 18:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that tables only look good for for one-paragraph (or less) kind of information, but others may feel different. But what is the point in removing all character descriptions from the tables now? Is there a reason for adding rainbow colors? Why are you adding 2mm spaces between each table entry? This doesn't follow the KISS principle at all. I ask you to self-revert and start a discussion before you proceed with these changes, so we can see if there is consensus. So far, I disagree very much with your recent changes. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing: Stargate SG-1 is, as you probably know, the longest-running scifi show in North America, so it is not surprising that it has more recurring characters than most other shows. However, most of these characters are not more notable than those of other shows => most these characters cannot support their articles => they and their plot arcs are covered mentioned in lists. One main list for characters is the general standard on wikipedia (at least for longer-running serial works), and these lists are usually safe from deletion. On the other hand, Wikipedia has recommendations for how big an article or list should be, both from page load times (huge pages take longer to load, which may overwhelm editors with 56k modems) and an organizational point of view (it gets harder to find a piece of information the bigger the article gets).

I have written character lists before, and the best trade-off for SG-1 under these circumstances seems to be to mention all significant characters in List of Stargate SG-1 characters, allow stand-alone articles for all (main) characters who can support one, and split off all recurring characters into sublists per size recommendations; one list for Earthlings and one list for the aliens is a reasonable compromise. There may or may not be plans to merge most stand-alone race articles into Mythology of Stargate (my wiki-attention is elsewhere at the moment to pursue this idea), so those alien characters need to be covered somewhere, and we've gone full circle to the previous organization. I have already said that I find several faults with your way of reorganization, but I do not want to hurt your feelings by simply reverting your edits or even start an edit war. So I ask you again to consider self-reverting and starting a discussion at e.g. Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 characters or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate. I'll shut up if more people prefer your organization over the previous version, because that's concensus for better or for worse. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting a discussion. Since you have not self-reverted, I have to ask whether you intend to do so soon, or if you want to await the outcome of the discussion etc.? – sgeureka ^t•c 21:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Stargate SG-1 characters‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I have left an extended explanation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stargate#Re-organization_of_the_main_char._list and hope your disengage from editing this list for the time being. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

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 List of Stargate SG-1 characters, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. 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. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: List of Stargate SG-1 characters was changed by Trust Is All You Need (u) (t) deleting 8838 characters on 2009-04-02T19:36:17+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Fraiser

I notice you started recreating this article earlier - please do bear in mind that a while ago consensus was established at WP:GATE to merge and redirect all SG-1 character articles into List of recurring Earth characters in Stargate SG-1. I wasn't originally happy with this, as it meant losing a lot of info, but it was still the consensus. Before you start creating these articles again, I suggest checking (i.e. starting a discussion) with WikiProject Stargate. WP:BOLD is a good idea, but it doesn't apply when overruling others or going directly against consensus. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:RecStargate

Template:RecStargate has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Ckatz^chat _spy 18:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality classing

Hi, I noticed with the character articles you restored, you rated it "B-Class". I suggest you think things through first, because one four lined paragraph of behind the scenes info on Harry Maybourne is hardly B, or even C class. Please read WP:ASSESS to get a better understanding on how articles are rated. Thanks. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider to focus one one article before moving on to the next

You have restored several SG character articles (at the moment Janet Fraiser, Harry Maybourne, Charles Kawalsky). While it's admirable that you add some real-world information when you do so (this is actually rare with enthusiastic editors who are new to wikipedia), you should ask yourself if the content you added couldn't also be mentioned in the character lists without restoring the character articles. To be honest, the only SG-1 characters that currently do not have an article but could be able to support one (as far as my SG-1 knowledge and wiki experience goes) are: Anubis (Stargate), Ba'al (Stargate), and with very much work potentially Janet Fraiser and Apophis (Stargate) (the last two may have increased plot significance but it is very hard even for me to find sufficient real-world information because the first seasons of SG-1 generally have much less real world information). Each article should at least have the potential to become a WP:Good Article (take a good look around there what is expected of such articles), and most of the recurring SG characters can't achieve that quality even if some sources for real-world information exist. I'll therefore merge Maybourne and Kawalsky back into the character lists soon, and plan to open a merge proposal for Fraiser unless more real-world information is added there.

If you enjoy Stargate SG-1 and encyclopedic article building (I enjoy both very much), you will likely have a smoother and more rewarding experience here if you focus on one character of your choice and see how far you can develop his article, before you move on to the next article. Another idea is to start developing the characters in the character lists and then use {{split2}} proposals, or work on a character in your userspace before restoring an article and copying the information there. What may be even easier is to work on the main character articles, a bunch of which are in a pretty bad shape regarding their development and reception, but at least it's very easy to locate good real-world information quickly even as an inexperienced wikipedian. What I've also found easy and rewarding as a wiki newbie is to work on episode articles, but it's harder if you don't have the audio commentaries. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't worked on the article Janet Fraiser since April 6. {{underconstruction}} is intended for a temporary use of just a few days, no to stall mergers forever. The article duplicates information of List of recurring Earth characters in Stargate SG-1 yet with less quality (see e.g. WP:WAF). You should either add more real-world content to justify a WP:SPINOUT article, or agree to the merger/redirect that I had already tried last week. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kawalsky

I've seen your question at WT:STARGATE, I know that I've heard the same information somewhere too, but I can't remember where. I do have all of SG-1 and the film on DVDs, but there is no featurette dedicated to Kawalsky. The producers may have said something note-worthy in the audio commentary for "Moebius", there's a director's series featurette on "Moebius", and I think the actor who plays Kawalsky appeared in one of the SG-1 Sci Fi specials (which are available on DVD as well). That's several hours I'd need to check, but I am currently not in the mood to do that (which I hope you'll understand). I have only a very brief mention of Kawalsky in my print sources (one sentence worth of Reception), but apart from that, I'd need to hound the internet just like you do. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about reverting Stargate SG-1 (season 1)

Sorry. I had scrolled to the bottom of the article and saw that you removed all of it, but hadn't noticed that you had expanded and moved information to the top. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you don't need to add {{underconstruction}} templates to the top while you're expanding an article. The template just avoids that the article from getting tagged for deletion when it may not [yet] be developed enough for inclusion, or when you otherwise know that major content is still missing and don't want to confuse the reader. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Stargate SG-1 episodes

Template:Stargate SG-1 episodes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Stargate episodes written by Brad Wright

I have nominated Stargate episodes written by Brad Wright, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stargate episodes written by Brad Wright. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etruscan template

Hello buddy. Welcome to Wikipedia. You seem to know far too much about Wikipedia to be a genuine newcomer; however, there are some messages above in this discussion indicating some innocence. Whether you are or not, welcome. I like what you did to the template. These Etruscan articles sure could use some work. If I don't agree I will not hesitate to revise anything; but then, neither would any other experienced editor. A lot of people put articles up just to have something in that place but someone has to go over this material both for content and format. Usually we don't start with templates, but if you can handle it, no reason why not. I think you could use more of a user page but that is your decision.Dave (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate (film)

What does the sentence "The special effects team used the items to Ra and his Horus guards as they used on the Stargate" mean? It seems like a crucial word is missing, even if the preceding sentence (which I've trimmed and merged with another sentence) said "Together they created images of the Stargate and how it was going to look on screen". I can't copyedit it without knowing what it means in essence. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Etruscans, breaking the GFDL licence

Are you aware that you are violating the GFDL licence by copy and pasting from other articles without putting a link to the article in the edit summary? There is now no easy way of finding out who contributed what to the article, for instance copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Please use edit summaries - if you don't, it increases the likelihood your edits will be reverted as having been done with no explanation Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etruscan civilization

I've reverted your edits. Again, they probably broke the GFDL. They added more uncited statements to an article that needed more references, and one reference you did copy didn't work because it had simply been copied. Please don't do this. If you want to add material, that's great, but make sure it's referenced and that you know the reference is correct. And, as I've said, use edit summaries. We are both here to make these articles better and I've no doubt that you want to improve them. One problem is that some of these articles were written at a time when our policies and guidelines were a lot weaker than they are now, another reason to be careful about copy and paste. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Asking you again, please use edit summaries. Also, please respond to concerns expressed on your talk page. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ANI about you, and no one remembered to tell you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_deal_with_editor_merging_articles_without_attribution_to_earlier_article.3F

Not involved, since I don't know anything about that subject. Just thought you should be aware of the discussion. Dream Focus 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have, but as he doesn't pay any attention to this page... Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from ANI...

We are not saying that you should not improve the articles. What we're saying is that you can't do that by cutting and pasting.

That's not a style issue. It's a legal issue. When you cut and paste like that, you copy text from one article without attribution to the new article. The GFDL license which Wikipedia operates under requires that Wikipedia maintain attribution for all editors' contributions.

We do and will block you if you continue to violate our licensing terms.

Improving articles is encouraged. Please keep doing that. But don't violate the license.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your cooperation at Etruscan origins

Although I'm still not sure you've got the resources to edit these (eg access to online periodicals, etc), it's nice to see you saying in an edit summary that it's ok to revert. Cooperation is a good thing. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rome

So are you still revamping the Rome (TV series) article or not? If not, the template should be removed. It's now been there for nearly two weeks. Paul B (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Paul B (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MacGyver

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 Template:MacGyver, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Template:MacGyver. Thank you. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Template:MacGyver. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stargate Infinity episodes

Please do not remove the refimprove tag as you did in List of Stargate Infinity episodes as some of the stuff in the article has no references. Powergate92Talk 16:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the episode summarys have no references. Powergate92Talk 17:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do need references see WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. Powergate92Talk 20:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Verifiability says "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}." Also List of Power Rangers: RPM episodes has references for episode summaries. Powergate92Talk 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Verifiability also says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Powergate92Talk 20:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the refimprove tag from the List of Stargate Infinity episodes article. The article needs more references per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. Also you are edit warring. Powergate92Talk 17:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove the refimprove tag from the Stargate Infinity article the article needs more references per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research as most of the Series overview and characters section is unsourced and the beginning of the Production, release and reception section is unsourced. Powergate92Talk 19:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about the plot summary as i added the source for the plot summary (See this edit)! I am talking about info like "The story arc was never resolved because of low viewership ratings" and the info about the characters. I will revert your removing of the refimprove tag until a source is added for that info. Powergate92Talk 20:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a Wikipedia policy or guideline that says character and plot overview don't need to be referenced but i do see 2 Wikipedia policy that say "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed" (WP:Verifiability) and "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research" (WP:No original research). Also you are edit warring again. Powergate92Talk 23:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Trust Is All You Need. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Powergate92Talk 19:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Please read the guidelines about canvassing - your edits here and here are somewhat poor form - especially in light of your opinion that straw polls don't matter. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition lists

Yo. Next time you wanna convert an article with a lot of sections into a list, try using a definition list, if it is more suitable. See Wikipedia:Lists#Definition_lists. --Ysangkok (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried using tables on the main list once, but was rejected... --TIAYN (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eeehm I'm talking about this article: Goa'uld technology in Stargate. I don't see how tables could fit there at all. --Ysangkok (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, thought you were talking about the list article, but OK. Sorry for misunderstanding. --TIAYN (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For what it's worth, thanks for helping out on the Sanctuary-related articles, (the template, starting the awards page, uploading images, some cleanup) I appreciate it. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, i like to help :), thanks --TIAYN (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your disruptive editing

This is a warning regarding your behavior here at Wikipedia. This is not vandalism. This is totally inappropriate. If you cannot learn to be a part of a collaborative project, this is not the place for you. Any further disruption, tendentious editing, personal attacks, or edit warring may result in a block. Tan | 39 19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit other users comments without their permission

Trust Is All You Need do not edit other users comments without their permission as you did with my comment in this edit per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. Powergate92Talk 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also can't edit your own comment after it has been replied to per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments. Powergate92Talk 19:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that isn't precisely true: as per WP:TALK and protocol, a user wishing to redact their text can do so up until someone else replies to it. After that, the discussion thread must be preserved; the user must strike through the text they wish to redact with an explanation as to why they are doing so in the edit summary. Simple removal is seen as deceptive, whether deception was intended.

Lastly, do not ever, ever remove the posts of others unless it consisted of a personal attack (and wiki-en consensus is largely divided even then about removal). Refactoring, changing or removing others' comments - except to place them in chronological order (emphasis mine) - will get you blocked so fast your grandkids will get whiplash. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X-Files Triangle

Per your request, here's the ratings/viewer information for the X-Files episode 'Triangle':

Rating: 10.8 Share: 16 Viewers: 18.20 million

Source: The End and the Beginning: The Official Guide to the X-Files Season 6 By Andy Meisler Published: 2000 by HarperCollins, NY, NY Page: 294

Major props to you for working on enhancing the X-Files episode pages. I've put a lot of work into them (mostly seasons 1 & 2) and am glad to see someone else working on them too. Admittingly have fallen behind in terms of how much work I wanted to do on them (its been a while since I've made any enhancements) but hopefully someday I'll get back into things. :P Quiddity99 (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

Vandalism warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Etruscan art, you will be blocked from editing. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of The X Files Episodes

Undo changes is not vandalism. There's a main article about The X-Files, so I think the information you've added at the begining of the article is repetitive, since the article only consist on listing the episodes of the show and not the plot or synopsis. Some 'sources' were changed a few months ago to not be (again) repetitive. Check my talk. (CGLF (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't make the article, I mean I just reverted it to the way it was before you started your changes. You are the only one that keeps changing it. I think the beginning of the article is too long. This is just an episode list, if anyone is interested in what the show is about (for example) they can click on link where it says The X-Files.

You keep reverting my changes and it seems like you make all the changes you want without regarding the rest of the user's opinions. The only thing I did is revert the article the way it was before you came. The article has always been that way, or at least for a while. I just think that a few of the things that you've added are redundant and repetitive. The articles do not necessarily need to be repetitive, I don't agree with that. Maybe it's just the way your want them to be.

And of course those two links you provided are the same way you want this article to be, because you've edited them! (CGLF (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm treating you with respect, so you could do that at least. It is not MY version, I explained it before. You keep reverting and changing a lot of articles and people are complaining, calling it "disruptive editing". It doesn't matter what I think, but it does matter what you think? I can't have an opinion here? You are changing all the list of episodes from different shows the way you want them to be. You are the one making all these changes and everything that you want. And you are the one who has a problem with the original version.

Yes, the article is long, but that is why introductions exists. You don't need to read the whole thing to know the basics.

You talk about "clean" articles but you're not resprectul towards some users. You also revert any change/s that other user/s make on the article!!

You were the one that said that we should "discuss", so why are you complaining now?

Oh, and I'm not the only one that reverted your changes. (CGLF (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

July 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles, as you did to Syfy, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Infobox The X-Files episode

Template:Infobox The X-Files episode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baby William

Hi. With regard to this edit, please keep in mind that all content here needs to be written from a neutral point of view. As you yourself note, there is no verification that William was Mulder's biological son, so the child should not simply be listed as "son." That connotes a biological relation, which is misleading. It is also an example of personal analysis or synthesis. I've made a good faith edit and labeled him as a foster son, as the series never verified any relation beyond that. Happy editing. -- James26 (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Television Episode

I'll see what I can do. Part of what's making it easier is the bulleted list in the second box, but I'll work on making the section a little more manageable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - And the changes shouldn't adversely affect previous uses of the template. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what color to use and I'll add it to Template:Television colour - that's the template that controls the header colors. Make sure it's a color everyone's ok with. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general format for that template (the episode infobox one) seems to be that every episode of a given show should be the same color; for example, all the Simpsons episodes appear to have yellow trim, all the Sopranos ones are gray, etc. If that's what you're after, I can do that quite easily. If you're looking to have individual episodes be different colors, I'd have to say no; not only would that go against the manual of style for this sort of thing (the template documentation warns it'll turn us into "skittlepedia"), it would also involve a substantial amount of coding to make sure it worked properly everywhere it's used. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that I can do. What's the hex code for that color? I can add it in this evening when I'm on my main account. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate SG-1 (season 1) GAN

Hey there! I've removed your nomination of Stargate SG-1 (season 1) from GAN because it is a list rather than an actual "article". This does not reflect on the quality; rather, I feel that it should actually be nominated at WP:FLC! Nice work with the article. Just a heads up :) Cheers, I'^mperator 21:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Stargate Atlantis (season 1), btw. ;-) Cheers, I'^mperator 21:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...that's odd. Some lists (such as The Simpsons (season 3) or such) are at WP:FLC. Sorry for removing the two articles (I'll restore them now). However, to be frank, I really would recommend a FLC over a GA; that glistening star does look better than a plus sign :P Cheers, I'^mperator 22:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Cheers, I'^mperator 22:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X-Files

Actually, I don't know a thing about the show; I only listed it at Good Article reassessment because I noticed it was in lousy shape. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Chung's From Outer Space

Please do not revert to versions that are full of personal opinion and unsourced original research. Thanks! -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of "comedic milestone" are completely your personal opinion without you providing a reliable source that makes the claim. Your continued return of such unsourced content to the article is disruptive behavior and can lead to your account being blocked. Please either undo your edit or continue to edit to provide proper sourcing for opinions, or removal of opinions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good evening then. I will return the article to the version that more closely meets Wikipedias policies and you can add your sourced content later. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Jimmy_Bond_TXF.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Jimmy_Bond_TXF.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Infobox Twin Peak character

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Magioladitis (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations section on The X-Files

Hi, I noticed you reverted the edit I did to the awards and nominations section on The X-Files. I added that edit because I thought that a focus on just the Emmys was unnecessary and that the other awards should be mentioned, because this is a summary; I also thought that it would be presented better in a list form in a collapsible box. I certainly would be happy to work out some sort of compromise between you and I on that little bit. For now, I hope it will be ok if I re-add in the bit I did and leave your bit too. Please respond on my talk page. Hardtofindaname 20:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, basically the table I put on the article is just the awards, so essentially it's a summary, which I think is appropriate for a main page. Plus, the table essentially says what you were saying, but in a more summarized form. It's also easier to navigate and able to be sorted by year, category, award, etc. As an added bonus it's collapsible. (All in my humble opinion, of course; some others may disagree.)

Perhaps we can get another editor to give input on this? I would like to figure out if it should be either or both. Thanks for your response. Hardtofindaname 21:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.

I haven't watched that particular episode, no, but I can take a look at the other sections. Hardtofindaname 21:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Extinction

What are your thoughts on having these two episodes be on one page, or two? Unlike Redux or NIHT, the second episode has a slightly different name with "Amor Fati" added to the end. Let me know.... :P Quiddity99 (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

Re: The X-Files

Oh, you're welcome. I'm almost done with the review, so, I'll let you know about it. Um, I have a question, why is there a big space gap between the Main cast and Episodes section? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I was just wondering. I was going to assume good faith fix the space situation, but then I saw {{-}}, and decided against it and was going to bring it up in the review, but I'm glad you got it. :) I'm almost done, so hang on. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm done. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can either crop the image, removing the stuff from the bottom of the badges, or maybe see if you can find the image on the internet, only with a lower resolution. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Hey, just wanted to say congrats on getting the X-Files season 8 page passed for Good Article status. :) What eps do you think are among those possibly worthy of GA nomination? I'm thinking The Unnatural, and Jose Chung's From Outer Space, once I can write a better plot summary... Quiddity99 (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

August 2009

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Cigarette Smoking Man. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. 90.197.107.184 (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedians who likes Millennium

Category:Wikipedians who likes Millennium, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've alson nominated the X-Files category you created for merging. VegaDark (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The X-Files: I Want to Believe. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Ckatz^chat _spy 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at The X-Files: I Want to Believe. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Ckatz^chat _spy 05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TIAYN, I was hoping you would learn from Xpfisher's block and discuss the edit, rather than just reverting as your first edit this evening. You two need to agree to leave the article alone and discuss it, probably with the assistance of a third opinion, before making any changes related to the disputed text. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and Nominations

Hello, Trust Is All You Need. You have new messages at Talk:The X-Files: I Want to Believe.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I know, but i'm blocked for two more hours so i can't respond... Can you please tell the user that IMDb is not an acceptable source according to Wikipedia rules and guidelines?

To the reception section, you can probably fix on run sentences and all. Halloween which is a GA, have alot more reviews then The X-Files: I Want to Believe. There are a lot of people that want more reviews than just two, it doesn't seem to give a "good detailed" look as Wikipedia usually makes. --TIAYN (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just respond when the block is lifted. :) For discussing awards, let's put IMDb aside and focus on the merits of the Portal and Constellation Awards. Let's discuss how to revise the reception section at the article's talk page. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]