Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I prefer to reply to comments on the page they were left, so if I left a comment on your page, reply there it is on my watch list. If you leave a comment here, watch this page until the discussion is done as I will only leave replies here. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, an attempt flame baiting, or that are are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right, don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you. I'm something of a neat freak, so I regularly archive items from my talk page when the discussion is resolved or closed, hence the archive box over there. ->>

Are you hear about an edit I made? You may want to check my user page first to get some general info on some common questions about edits I make. Here are some quick links as well:

• Explain the assessment you made on this TV or film article
• Why did you give X article Y tag(s)?

That's the thing, I've also seen it both ways. I noticed that the dates given at InuYasha were formatted UK style and an entire section was Americanized. What to do? Since the majority of the dates were already in UK style I just went along with it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, really. I've seen it both ways in some articles, and being rather regional, I tend to go for Americanized. I personally only use UK style in articles on UK shows. ~scrounges around in the MOS ~ Okay, it looks like either can be used for the article, so long as its consistent. The only main requirement is that for US-centric articles, the americanized should be used, while UK ones should use the "international" format.  :) Collectonian (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does Canada style the dates? I ask this because the English dub is from there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the MOS, Canada uses both equally, so either is acceptable. Collectonian (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We might have to keep an eye on Snapper2 (talk · contribs · logs). I'm not sure what his deal is, but he's almost breaking WP:3RR on Naruto's page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed. He is a relatively new editor, so I've been fairly lenient, but if he keeps it up I'll send him a warning as well. Collectonian (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very new. ~SnapperTo 05:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...sorry about that, I presumed you were new because of your actions, but since you are not then you do not need to be told, again, that your edits are not appropriate. For future reference, if multiple editors undo a change you make, you should not just keep making redoing it. Rather, bring the issue up on the talk page and discuss your point of view there. In the case of these edits, I could agree that the part "According to Viz" can be removed if Viz is only the publisher of the cited work, however the excessive wikification is completely unnecessary. Repeated wikifications are unnecessary and would only be required to be removed when we take the article up for FA status. If you continue to just revert the changes, you will violate 3RR and be subject to blocking. Collectonian (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors reverted me with the explanation of adding unneeded wikification, which I was not doing on the whole; the only link I added was one that Sesshomaru removed when he reverted me, and I in turn reverted him. It was not but negligence on my part. Even then, to again quote WP:CONTEXT#What generally should not be linked, "It is not uncommon to repeat a link that had last appeared much earlier in the article." Links, present or not, are not going to be the downfall of an article. ~SnapperTo 05:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sure act like a new editor. Otherwise, you'd know better than to edit war and hide warnings. Just open up a discussion on the article's talk page if you still disagree with the edits. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian, can you take a look at this? I would like to solve the problems brought up by Snapper2 on Naruto's page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and get Naruto Uzumaki updated per the talk. No one (aside from you and I) commented on the matter and frankly I don't believe anyone else bothers. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that seems to happen a lot...someone will complain, but then in the end only one or two people really care enough to do anything. Funny thing is, I don't even watch the show :P Collectonian (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I think people who particularly like anime or manga should. {^_^} Well, actually, if you were at one time a Dragon Ball supporter then the show is right for you. Anyways, I'll get the changes done. Thanks for your support, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, never could get into Dragon Ball either. Kinda ironic because it is the only anime my younger brother likes! :P Collectonian (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I cannot see why you keep removing every edit I make to this page. For instance, I corrected This is a ..dogs and you reverted it! Please show some respect for other users.

The article refers to the noble head, I have repeatedly inserted an image to illustrate, but, presumably because it is not your image you remove it! Please try to be reasonable! Mike0001 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was reasonable the multiple times I explained the issue on your talk page. You refuse to listen and are stubbornly edit warring over your pets picture. Reuploading it with another name does not make it any less your pet. I'm reporting you to the administrators so they can deal with your edit warring here, and in other articles. Collectonian (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you think you are the only person who has an opinion or is reasonable? Your accusations apply equally to you. And how do you know the dog is my pet? How do I know the other dogs illustrated are not your pets?

In what way do you think that the picture does not illustrate a collie noble head? Please explain! Mike0001

I added a link to a respected collie forum. You removed it. Why? Spam? Do you know what spam is?

(talk) 17:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded the picture, twice, and it was taken with your camera. Obvious presumption is that it is your pet (either that or you are violating copyright by not properly attributing the photographer). For your second question, obviously not mine when I didn't upload the images (and I currently own no rough collies). The picture does not illustrate a point in the text. The history mentions the words "noble head" it does not detail it, explain what a "noble" head is, so how can an image illustrate a point that doesn't even exist? The link was not appropriate. We do not link to fan forums. Collectonian (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGS aka Shadow is a pedigree dog. The picture was taken with my camera. Clearly I cannot divulge ownership as that would identify the owners! But I own copyright. Did you remove the first image? If you want to expand on noble, please do! Any good photos can only add to the worth of the site. I have other pictures from Crufts if you like. I don't see anything to get so angry about! Mike0001 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what's wrong with the picture independent of whether it is his pet? Because that alone (even if it is) wouldn't be a reason not to use the image. —Random832 17:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained, above and on his talk page multiple times. The article isn't long enough to support another image, it can barely support the three it has now. The image does not illustrate anything in the text, and certainly nothing in the section he added it to. He is claiming it illustrates a "noble head" but the text doesn't even define what a noble head is, so how can it illustrate it. It is only being added as decoration and because it is his. I suggested that if he wanted the image to included, he should expand the article to support it, by greatly expanding the appearance section to better discuss the collie head shape, something the article needs far more than yet another pretty picture. He didn't want to do that, though, and instead began attacking the existing text because it disagreed with his personal opinion, and continued to doggedly readd the picture. (no pun intended)Collectonian (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange but I don't think I could add an image that was not mine anyway. I don't recall you making any of the suggestions you have just mentioned either. As for not wanting to do something, every time I do try to do something you immediately remove it! Even correcting grammar or starting to add citations! Mike0001 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also explained that it was not a reliable source and that you were not formatting stuff properly. As for the grammar, the only reason it was removed was because you were couching it in bad edits. Notice I did not undo your last correction when you did the grammar correction by itself, without trying to shove the image in. Collectonian (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shove? You haven't given one good `reason why it should be unshoved! Mike0001 (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave lots, all based on Wikipedia guidelines and the MOS, but because you don't like those reasons, you decided they weren't good and that your reason of "because I like it" was the only one of importance.Collectonian (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding {{afdold}] to Talk:Lost Treasure (film). I forgot to take care of the Talk page. Best, Johntex\^talk 20:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob :) Collectonian (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you for your help please on the above article. User:Edito*Magica keeps trying to change the lead to this, which as I have explained is against guidelines and against what other episode pages look like. However, he will not listen to me and keeps reverting saying "nd my rule does suit the article better, it is more concise, quicker and easier for users to find details" (from my TalkPage). I really would appreciate a third opinion on the matter. I know the article needs a lot of work, but we can at least keep the lead half-decent.--UpDown (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ewww...why would he think that is a better format? I've reverted his latest change, and as he's done it multiple times, I've left him a 3RR warning with an explanation as to why his actions are wrong. I'll keep the page in my watchlist and if he does it again, I'll report him for the 3RR violation. I do have one suggestion on the article layout, though. Consider adding a series table and converting the current tables to use the {{episode list}} table. For an example of the series table code, take a look at List of Meerkat Manor episodes, which is a recent FL episode list. :) Collectonian (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. It's a page on my long-term "to do" list, but I'm currently focusing on List of Time Team episodes and finishing List of To the Manor Born episodes. Once I've done them, I will certainly do this as it does need serious work. --UpDown (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I would just like to make it clear that my intentions behind all my edits are to improve Wikipedia articles. The truth is, the new layout that a certain “Updown” is against is far more suitable, not only does it allow users at a glimpse to find information, without having to read the entire paragraph, but it also does not break any Wiki rules.

The lead definition page clearly states that the lead layout does not need to be followed, and I think you’ll find that my alterations to the episode page still do everything the definition says. I quote: “The lead section, lead, lede, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading. The table of contents, if displayed, appears between the lead section and the first heading. The lead serves a dual role both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.” My layout does exactly these things. It goes on: “The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.” (my changes make it more concise) “It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs…” (the layout still contains paragraphs) “…should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.” So with my layout fulfilling all of this, what rules am I breaking exactly? And it’s only a minor change, all the information is still present and most of it is still paragraphed. I hope you have taken on board what I’ve said, and don’t approach the dispute is a bias way. I am afraid I will revert back to my changes because they are positive improvements, of which I will make to similar articles. I know it’s a long message, so thanks for your time. Edito*Magica (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you learn the appropriate format ofr articles. The lead should appears BEFORE any table of contents, so your edits are completely removing the lead all together. That is not appropriate. Your formatting also goes against the established format for an episode list as established by community consensus. You don't get to decide that because you "think" your format is better (and its not), that you can just keep changing it and be allowed to do so. If you continue to go against stated consensus, you will be considered to be edit warring and risk being blocked. Collectonian (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are not completely removing the lead altogether, just altering the layout slightly. You have misunderstood. And because my alterations are making the article more concise and easier to read, such changes are appropriate. Surely you can see sense?

Aside from the point, I have deleted information that is repeated once on the same page, because it is pointless being told the same thing twice. Edito*Magica (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, your layout does not make anything more concise or easier to read. Again, we have an established format for episode lists and Wikipedia has strong guidelines for general article/list format. Your edits completely violate those, and are unnecessary and inappropriate. As for removing repeated information, the point of the lead is to summarize information, so it will repeat stuff from the rest of the article. That is its point. I strongly suggest you stop your apparent campaign to ruin many episode lists by applying your false idea that your preferred format is somehow good. It will only earn you additional ire from editors and result in you being considered disruptive as you have already had it explained to you in extensive detail that it is wrong. Collectonian (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said there is no point in repeating the same information on the same page, hence the main. Aside from this I am not being disruptive, it is called improvements. And it is not “your episode list”.Edito*Magica (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being disruptive. You are blantantly disgrading Wikipedia guidelines and policies because you disagree with them, you continue to ruin an episode list with your bad attempts at enforcing your bad edits, and you are not working with WP:CONSENSUS. It is not your episode list, either, it is the community, and it will be protected from editors who try to violate what the community has decided how an episode list should be formatted and arranged. Collectonian (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned before, my edits to the layout still follow the Wikipedia guidelines of which I have quoted from above. The layout still summarises, is still concise, etc. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy stating that bullet points cannot be used to show the lead. It allows users to find information at a glimpse. Edito*Magica (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Keeping Up Appearances, 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.Edito*Magica (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]