User talk:Trust Is All You Need/Archive 2

GA review of Walter Skinner

I have conducted a review of the above article. I have some concerns which you can see at Talk:Walter Skinner/GA1. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on getting another X-Files article to GA status, TIAYN. Quiddity99 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

T, I went ahead and failed the GA for this article because no work was done on it for over two weeks. If you follow my suggestions, I'll change the fail to a succeed at any time. Please let me know how I can be of assistance. --Christine (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page. --Christine (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The X-Files episode redirects to lists: Category vs template

Hello Trust, is [[Category:The X-Files episode redirects to lists]] preferred to {{ER to list entry|The X-Files}}? I have been fixing broken episode redirects. The early ones had mostly been tagged with the template, so that's what I used on those redirects to the season episode lists that had not been tagged, but now that I've noticed the direct category tags, I wonder if they are preferred. -- ToE^T 19:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-asked over at WT:WikiProject The X-Files#The X-Files episode redirects to lists: category vs template, which is probably a better place for a reply. -- ToE^T 01:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stargate Universe (SGU) episodes

The DVD has not been announced yet so the info should not be in the article. Also this article from Gateworld says that Stargate Universe season 1 may be release in "two separate DVD sets" volume one and volume two. Powergate92Talk 20:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's original research because there is no source in the article that says there will be a complete Season 1 box set. If you revert again I will report you for violating WP:3RR. Powergate92Talk 05:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not violating WP:3RR as you have to have more then 3 reverts to violate WP:3RR and I am reverting because the info violates WP:No original research. Powergate92Talk 06:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this again you have to have more then 3 reverts (a.k.a 4 reverts up) to violate WP:3RR. Powergate92Talk 06:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note Both of you, drop it and keep this on the article talk page. Honestly, I could easily block both of you right now for this behaviour. TIAYN, you should really know better given that you just had a block for the same revert issues a few weeks ago. As for Powergate92, you were edit warring earlier today at Stargate Universe and you are breaching the spirit of the 3RR rules at the list. Note that you do not have the right to revert three times; that is only a benchmark for the guideline, and it is not a target you should be aiming for. 3RR blocks come for violations of the spirit of the rules as much as they do for the technical details. --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X-Files

Hey, just wanted to say that I haven't forgotten your request to expand the Mythology of the X-Files page through at least season 5, and hopefully through 6 and 7 as well. Just have been extremely busy as of late and haven't been able to dedicate the same amount of time to the X-Files pages here as I had been during the summer time. Hope to continue it some time in October. Quiddity99 (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

Replied at your talk page. --TIAYN (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the unexplained revert?

You just did a wholesale revert with absolutely no explanation.

Do you honestly believe this is a Wikipedia worthy sentence? "Transported to Destiny in a distant corner of the universe and unable to return to Earth, members of the team are forced to remain on the vessel and fend for themselves." Sounds more like a blurb on a movie poster.

Secondly since you seem to like doing WP:TV GAs you should know that greenlight dates of a current series do not belong in the intro as it is unimportant trivia once a show has been broadcast. The only possible controversy I could see with my edit was putting American before Canadian, I realize that the writers are Canadian and its filmed in Vancouver, but it is paid for by an American studio and money usually wins in these matters. But its not an issue I wish to fight about. So I'm going to reapply the other four edits in piecemeal. If you really disagree with one of these edits, make it better and give an explanation.

Finally, before performing unexplained reverts, you really should check the other users longevity and edit counts. I did and wrote this before getting into a silly edit war with you. -- KelleyCook (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Springfield Files"

I don't mean to be picky, but it would probably have been politer if you had you edit summary as "added source" or something. The whole automatic undo thing makes it look my edit was vandilism, when instead I was trying to uphold policy. I'm still not entirely happy citing the episode itself, but I suppose in this instance the only thing which wasn't sourced was the episode the speedo scene was in, so I guess its okay. We have to source every detail in the Cultural references sections, preferrably to confirmation from the staff themselves, in order to avoid OR. It's annoying, but that's life. Gran² 18:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hi, since your creating characters from Stargate Universe, could you do me a favour and let me create Matthew Scott. I may take time though, as I usually do. Thanks. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, you seem to be doing a great job so far (nice work on Rush, Young and Wallace BTW) and on that note, there I heard somewhere that David Blue is a Stargate fan, that would be perfectly notable for adding to Wallace. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Oh, and while I'm at it, check out this David Blue Q&A from Joe's Blog. It is that source that says he's a Gater. Take your time at it, it's quite lenghty. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X-files

Just letting you know, while I appreciate the sentiment, you don't need to leave a message on my talk page whenever you reply on the article talk page. I'm watching the article talk page. :) Equazcion (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try to give episode names in the character arc. For example, "In the end, Alex Krycek and Marita Covarrubias betray him and throw him down a flight of stairs, where they presumed the dead." This could be changed to, "In the end, Alex Krycek and Marita Covarrubias betray him in the episode "Requiem", throwing him down a flight of stairs, where they presume him to be dead." Ophois (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean he's retired? Ophois (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He says on his page that he will finish up open tasks, so you should ask him on his talk page whether he is continuing or giving up reviewership on the article. If he is giving it up, I'll take over. Ophois (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Important Happened Today

T, congratulations; this article has been passed to GA. Kudos to you for all your hard work in improving TXF articles. I mentioned in the final comments in the review that the article needed a copyedit. Would it be stepping on your toes if I did it? Unlike other reviewers, I have problems with explaining what I mean when I critique someone else's writing, so I thought I'd show you by just doing it. Would that be okay with you. If so, I'll do a copyedit in the next couple of days. --Christine (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TW temp

Great work on the Twin Peaks template, looks a lot better! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Erlenmeyer Flask

Now you completely removed the Alt text, just read the guidelines, it's simply a description of what happens on the image.--Music26/11 17:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, don't beat yourself up about it. Here's how it works, I can't really explain you why it needs to be included (maybe for blind people, or perhaps it's just another thing to nitpick about, I don't know), but it's quite simple. It's simply a description of what happens in the image, see the Seinfeld (season 2) page for instance, the Larry David image. If you stand on it with your mouse you can read what the image looks like without the assumption that the reader knows who he is. That's what you need to do, you need to describe the image for someone who is unfamiliar with anything related to the show.--Music26/11 17:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Other information"?

What other information are you seeking documentation for? Please clarify. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MAI

Sorry chum, it wasn't deliberate that I omitted the wikilink when adding those other organisations. I'll now go back and put the others in (though the Preamble Center seems to be no more). Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats okay... You did good work.. But thanks for your comment :P --TIAYN (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Moore presidential campaign, 2008

It has been brought to my attention that Brian Moore presidential campaign, 2008 is too new to pass the criteria of "stability." Therefore I failed the nomination. Nominate it at WP:DYK and give it more exposure to other editors, then notify me and I will give it a more thorough review. Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that it was recommended that you nominate it at DYK. I apologize that since it was not created within the last 5 days from nomination, it can not be accepted. This has nothing to do with the article, but instead a rule to keep DYK manageable as we can only post 32 a day to the main page. Thank you for your interest in DYK and if you have any further interesting articles in the future please feel free to nominate them. Articles expanded 5x within the last 5 days also qualify. If you have any questions at all feel free to ask either here, at WP:DYK or at my talk page. Kindly Calmer Waters 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Brian Moore presidential campaign, 2008

Hello! Your submission of Brian Moore presidential campaign, 2008 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer Waters 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural

Good idea, thanks. I won't have the resources to finish it for more than a month. How is a sandbox created? Ophois (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The X-Files (season 9)

Hey TIAYN, please don't be too made at me; I quick-failed this article at GAN. After reading it, I realized that it just has too many problems to be resolved easily, as per the quick-fail criteria. Here's why: forgive my Mulderesque bluntness, but the prose was pretty bad. I suggest that you have someone peer review and/or copyedit it. I was just gonna do it, like I did for Nothing Important Happened Today, but like I said, it's not an easy fix. If you ask, though, I will, and then you can resubmit it. On a personal note, I had a recent spectacular GA-failure for similar reasons, too, with History of Sesame Street. I learned that my writing is simply not strong enough for a quick pass through GAN, so I decided that I'd get all the articles I work on go through a PR and CE first, before submitting it for GA. And then if I want them to go through the FAC process, that'd be easier and less painful, too. Good luck. --Christine (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate: Continuum GAN

Hi, I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and fixed the issues in Stargate: Continuum's GAN review. Which has now succeeded. Good job on bringing it up to GAN status. [SCΛRECROW]^{CrossCom 2.0} 05:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you do a lot GA reviews?

I notice that you nominate a bunch. Good job on those X-Files ones. I used to work a bit on them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jeffrey Spender

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Jeffrey Spender you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democrats and Wikiproject Socialism

For what reason are the Liberal Democrats being included in Wikiproject Socialism? They are not and never have been a socialist party. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject banners

I noticed you have removed the WikiProject Politics banner from the Marxism talk page whilst adding the WikiProject Socialism banner. In future, when adding the Socialism banner please ensure that you leave the Politics banner in place as well, rather than replacing it. Please re-add the Politics banner to any other pages you have removed it from. If you continue removing the Politics banner from other talk pages you will be reported for vandalism. Willy turner (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that you have removed the politics banner from several other pages. If you do not re-add the banner to all the talk pages you have removed it from asap, and contact me to let me know you have done this, I will request an admin to block you from editing. Willy turner (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

TIAYN, I have to admit, my talk page has never been vandalized in this way. ;) Seriously, your note didn't seem at all angry to me. Your posts on the review page in question, however... ;)

Ok, really, I'll be serious now. You didn't have to delete your post on my talk page, though; all you had to do was make another "never mind" post. But no worries. I sympathize with your GA woes. The reviewer has a point, though. These episode articles do tend to be a little weak on the sources, although I fully understand why. I think that with these kinds of articles, we need to be a little more flexible. What can you do if there aren't the kind of resources out there about the subject? I believe that for some articles, fan sites like the ones you've tended to use are okay. I'm sure you understand that these articles will never get to FA, for the very reasons the reviewer cites. I agree that a plot summary section doesn't need to be sourced, and that it's okay to use the DVD auditory comments as a source. I've used sources that other reviewers don't necessarily have access to, like books I've purchased that aren't available online, or even documentaries. There are other editors who actually visit the library in their research of an article. Not having a source readily available isn't a good reason to prevent an article from going to GA, or even to FA.

That being said, I have a question for you, TIAYN: why is it so important for these articles to go to GA? I think collecting those green stamps is a commendable goal (one that's important for me as well), but I don't think that should be the only thing you get out of improving articles. There needs to be good scholarship out there about "The X-Files", and I think that should be reason enough to work on its Wikipedia articles. The goal should be better articles in Wikipedia, and the improvement of the project as a whole. Maybe you should consider not submitting an episode article to GAC so quickly. I suggest that you submit these articles to peer review first. Anytime you want me to pr one of your articles, just ask; I'd be more than happy to oblige. Then when you do submit them to GAC, they'll fly right through. The GAN list is pretty long anyway, as you well know.

Sorry for my long-winded, rambling response. Please know that you're free to disregard any and all comments and feedback. --Christine (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]