| Revision as of 03:47, 20 May 2009 editRobert K S (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,102 editsm →Jeopardy!← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:00, 20 May 2009 edit undoRobert K S (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,102 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
| :Point #1 is sufficiently self-evident; for the person who doubts, a Google search of the term should be enough to convince that the term is used widely and has been in use for a long time. As to #2, it should follow from #1: the name is widely used, and therefore anyone searching Misplaced Pages for information about what a "sushi bar set" should be able to find the answer within Misplaced Pages. As to #3, the newsgroup posting should be thought of as the Internet age's version of a historical document. It is clear from context that the posting does not represent the first instance of the use of the nickname, but rather, that the nickname had become common even by then. What is being done here is the equivalent of citing to a primary source document. We are simply showing, by linking to the newsgroup, that the name for the set existed widely and early on. ] (]) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC) | :Point #1 is sufficiently self-evident; for the person who doubts, a Google search of the term should be enough to convince that the term is used widely and has been in use for a long time. As to #2, it should follow from #1: the name is widely used, and therefore anyone searching Misplaced Pages for information about what a "sushi bar set" should be able to find the answer within Misplaced Pages. As to #3, the newsgroup posting should be thought of as the Internet age's version of a historical document. It is clear from context that the posting does not represent the first instance of the use of the nickname, but rather, that the nickname had become common even by then. What is being done here is the equivalent of citing to a primary source document. We are simply showing, by linking to the newsgroup, that the name for the set existed widely and early on. ] (]) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::I see that the set portion has essentially been whittled away to nothing. It is no longer serviceable as an encyclopedic section that assists in identification of a certain set with a certain era of the show, nor does it provide the basic information necessary to understand the configuration of the set components or their adaptation to changing technology. All the pictures have been removed. I don't see a reason why the section should be kept at all at this point. ] (]) 03:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC) | ::I see that the set portion has essentially been whittled away to nothing. It is no longer serviceable as an encyclopedic section that assists in identification of a certain set with a certain era of the show, nor does it provide the basic information necessary to understand the configuration of the set components or their adaptation to changing technology. All the pictures have been removed. I don't see a reason why the section should be kept at all at this point. ] (]) 03:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Bad faith etc.== | |||
| I appreciate this may be difficult for you and some other editors to grasp, but it's actually the placement of talk content into the article space that is vandalistic, and it's a specific violation of ] (see lead, threshold for inclusion). I'm happy to support a discussion on the talk space, but I will oppose placement of drive-by tags the content of which do not relate to the article subject at the tops of articles. As to your sundry baseless bad faith and conflict of interest accusations, I don't see that they're worth responding to, since they're essentially unsubstantiated and libelous. You shouldn't post things like that to an established editor's talk page unless you're gunning for a fight. ] (]) 23:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:00, 20 May 2009
Archives
Pass The Buck (game show)
I would like to know exactly why this particular edit was made on the Pass The Buck article. If you had looked, you would have noticed that I had spent approximately three hours working on and refining the "Notable moments" section. Nothing personal, however I felt as if there needed to be some notable things on that page. Oh, yes -- if you feel the need to revert edits, only remove what doesn't belong. Otherwise, there's no point. Daniel Benfield (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wof Season26 title.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wof Season26 title.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
WikiProject Films
|
| Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Misplaced Pages's film-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Films? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Misplaced Pages's film-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. We also have a number of regional and topical task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC) |
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution (3rd nomination)
Just a note, whenever you nominate at AfD an article has already been nominated for deletion, please create a new nomination under a new subpage, as I have done for you at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution (3rd nomination). Do not simply post below the closed discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution. Cheers! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Format Link
- What format should the link be in? HannahMiley, talk
Card Sharks
Can you watch this article please? Someone keeps trying to split the 2001 version off into its own article again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 15:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Classic Concentration
Was there any consensus to merge Classic Concentration back into the Concentration article? The main Concentration article is quite long. You might want to undo the merge and make use of some {{merge}} templates first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 17:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
3RR report
Whilst the other user was obviously edit warring, you also violated 3RR and thus should be more careful in the future. Understandably those edits bordered on vandalism, but it's best to show restraint and show an attempt to engage the user early on the talk pages to avoid issues. Cheers, Nja 08:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| For all your work in cleaning up the game show cruft on Misplaced Pages, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters award you the tireless contributor barnstar. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC) |
Let's put it out there...
What about me offends you so much? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Erminio Costa
Was it really neccessary to delete the mention of him from St Elizabeth's page? I thought that "trivia" meant something like "the hospital is mentioned in episode no. 43 of ". Best regards, --CopperKettle 07:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Jeopardy!
Might want to keep an eye on this one. At least one editor is insistent on keeping the "sushi bar" term in there with a citation to a newsgroup, which is a no-no. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 11:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's not "a no-no" to include encyclopedic information (a common nickname) and then point to an early example of the name's use to demonstrate the verifiability of the fact that the name was used. The newsgroup message is what we have. What exactly is under dispute here? Is it--
- The fact that the Season 13-19 set is commonly called the "sushi bar set" amongst fans?
- The fact that such a nickname is encyclopedic information?
- The fact that the newsgroup posting represents that the term was in sufficiently wide use among fans even in the year the set was introduced?
- Point #1 is sufficiently self-evident; for the person who doubts, a Google search of the term should be enough to convince that the term is used widely and has been in use for a long time. As to #2, it should follow from #1: the name is widely used, and therefore anyone searching Misplaced Pages for information about what a "sushi bar set" should be able to find the answer within Misplaced Pages. As to #3, the newsgroup posting should be thought of as the Internet age's version of a historical document. It is clear from context that the posting does not represent the first instance of the use of the nickname, but rather, that the nickname had become common even by then. What is being done here is the equivalent of citing to a primary source document. We are simply showing, by linking to the newsgroup, that the name for the set existed widely and early on. Robert K S (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see that the set portion has essentially been whittled away to nothing. It is no longer serviceable as an encyclopedic section that assists in identification of a certain set with a certain era of the show, nor does it provide the basic information necessary to understand the configuration of the set components or their adaptation to changing technology. All the pictures have been removed. I don't see a reason why the section should be kept at all at this point. Robert K S (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Bad faith etc.
I appreciate this may be difficult for you and some other editors to grasp, but it's actually the placement of talk content into the article space that is vandalistic, and it's a specific violation of WP:V (see lead, threshold for inclusion). I'm happy to support a discussion on the talk space, but I will oppose placement of drive-by tags the content of which do not relate to the article subject at the tops of articles. As to your sundry baseless bad faith and conflict of interest accusations, I don't see that they're worth responding to, since they're essentially unsubstantiated and libelous. You shouldn't post things like that to an established editor's talk page unless you're gunning for a fight. Robert K S (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)