Revision as of 04:44, 23 March 2010 view sourceXnacional (talk | contribs)1,040 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:46, 23 March 2010 view source MikeWazowski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users33,732 edits Undid revision 351510380 by Xnacional (talk)Next edit → | ||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
The Special Editions were also released theathrically. Therefore, to call the original versions "Theatrical cuts" is inaccurate. ] (]) 21:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC) | The Special Editions were also released theathrically. Therefore, to call the original versions "Theatrical cuts" is inaccurate. ] (]) 21:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Hannibal Rising (film) == | |||
If you do not stop your edit war, I will report you. I have provided a source, which you haven't, so don't call my edit vandalism. ] (]) 04:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:46, 23 March 2010
Archives |
Your note at ANI
Hi, me again. Saw you note @ANI (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Theplanetsaturn_and_ownership_issues); ragrdless of what they'll tell you there, I sent a 3RR warning to the user w/ respect to El Sobrante, California. In the interest of fairness, I would have to warn both of you w/ regards to Landry Walker, but I won't do that formally. Just stay away and you'll be fine. I'll keep an eye on both articles. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks - I've actually been trying to do legitimate copyedits on the Walker article, but have been getting caught up in his reversions. Thanks for taking a look... MikeWazowski (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Like I keep saying to you, I don't particularly have a problem with you deleting the arguably incidental aspect of the discussion, if you would stop deleting the non-incident aspects. Otherwise, I see that you are wiki-stalking me. Why?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- What "non-incident aspects"? The elder-geek.com link and "contributing writer" claim? According to this search, he's only written one article solo for them - I don't find that all that notable or worthy of inclusion - perhaps you could explain why you blindly revert any changes, even when those reversions break valid links? MikeWazowski (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- My search came up with three, plus the "incident" article which makes a total of four in one month. That seems notable enough for me, it certainly seems to make my "claim" a "fact". Perhaps you could explain why you are following me from wiki page to wiki page?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Count again - as I stated, this is the only solo article that search brings up. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I count just fine. Here's the facts. Contributions to three articles, excluding the "incident" one. Plus he is listed as a "contributing writer". that's a cut and dried as it can be. Stop challenging obvious facts. http://www.elder-geek.com/index.php?s=landryTheplanetsaturn (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- What "non-incident aspects"? The elder-geek.com link and "contributing writer" claim? According to this search, he's only written one article solo for them - I don't find that all that notable or worthy of inclusion - perhaps you could explain why you blindly revert any changes, even when those reversions break valid links? MikeWazowski (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Like I keep saying to you, I don't particularly have a problem with you deleting the arguably incidental aspect of the discussion, if you would stop deleting the non-incident aspects. Otherwise, I see that you are wiki-stalking me. Why?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The new edit works for me. Thanks for leaving in the non incident aspects.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello MikeWazowski! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
- Kevin Rubio - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Trey Stokes - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Announcement
Hello, my name is StevenMario, and I wanted to say that I will stop doing these things that I used to do. I'm autistic, and some of you guys don't really know that. I'm trying to help Misplaced Pages, but there is one problem, sources. I cannot find a specific source for censorship cartoons nor can I find anything else. If you can help me, we can help out those pages before they face deletion. 68.217.90.83 (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
HELP!
Hello. My new article, List of video games notable for universal acclaim, needs help. Can you find games that are considered the best? StevenMario (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding 1up.com
Saw your ascertation regarding 1up.com being a possibly unreliable source. It doesn't appear you do a lot of editing regarding video games (seems you do mostly movies?), but the website for the magazine Electronic Games Monthly (no longer in publication, it's just the site now), 1up.com has always been considered a reliable source by the video games project. Unless you meant to infer because Blog was in the link that it was a self-published source, which it is not. It's run by the staff, and as stated in the guidelines "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Which is what that page would fall under. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
RFPP
You edit conflicted me, doggone it. :) Just throwing in my two cents, I'd leave a follow-up message on his talk page. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- S'okay... the kid's courting another block, if you ask me... If you think it necessary, I'll warn him, but warning him has done very little good in the past... MikeWazowski (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Laurence Wright Editing
Mike, Didn't mean to create some sort of vandalism in making changes and additions. I'm a novice in these matters and assumed I addressed the request when I added references I believed to be verifiable. I deleted notices, only because I assumed I addressed the concerns for verifiability with my added references. Help me out if you can. I tried linking the Pyramid Media website entry for two of Laurence's films, and one was denied as verifiable. Also, I've been attempting to add other links that would add credibility. I'll keep at it. I could use some more suggestions. This is not a hoax article. The man has made significant contributions in an area of non-traditional film production. Most of his work is for projects that have become cult classics or for Disney theme park shows that are no longer playing and/or do not have distributed credits.
I have been aiming to address editorial concerns. I have even removed much of the article, with a goal of finding more verifiable resources to back up the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winonave (talk • contribs) 23:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Trijit
Hello MikeWazowski. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Trijit to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Vader
Not taking sides but your edit war at Darth Vader needs to stop. Ridernyc (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Darth Vader
Hey, mind taking another look at Darth Vader? I looked at the page history and noticed you were involved a few days ago in an edit war there - looks like we've got a sockpuppet (or at least the guy editing without loggin in) of Wmmswxtmwenz01, edit-warring over the exact same thing, with the same exact phrasing. I'm not going to violate 3RR over this IP... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Star Wars Trilogy Special Edition
The Special Editions were also released theathrically. Therefore, to call the original versions "Theatrical cuts" is inaccurate. Xnacional (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)