This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stco23 (talk | contribs) at 23:33, 7 December 2007 (Stco23). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:33, 7 December 2007 by Stco23 (talk | contribs) (Stco23)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives |
I always reply to comments made here at this page, so please watch this page until the discussion is done. Please note that comments which are uncivil, contain vulgarity, or are excessively rude may simply be deleted without response. I'm also 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. ->>
Here about an assessment on a television or film article?
As part of both the TV and Film projects, I frequently make assessments on articles as part of the process of clearing out unassessed articles. Normally with these quick assessments, I do not leave notes explaining the assessments. If, however, you would like me to explain why I assessed a certain article at a specific grade, I'm happy to do so. Just start a new section below and let me know which article you are inquiring about (and please wikify the titles).
 | Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:
|
Threats
You are an itiot - no threats implied but you are still an idiot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.50 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you continue to be abusive and nasty, you will be reported. Collectonian 18:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Pine Grove, Norfolk County, Ontario
It strikes me as a little 'heavy-handed' to simply sweep in on an article about a tiny community, put together almost exclusively by a single editor over a relatively long period of time and delete most of its contents without any prior discussion on the articles talk page, or the placement of any warning templates beforehand. If you have issues regarding the overall quality of the article, perhaps you could start by discussing them on the articles talk page first and maybe placing an appropriate template or two before simply "wiping out" most of the contents in one go. It only seems fair to me to allow time for this editor to have a chance to improve their contribution. Thank You. PS I am unable to locate the 'edit summary' window on this page. Deconstructhis (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- This editor has had TONS of warnings and attempts to correct him. He's been reported to ANI for his tendency to make articles and add content that is 99% falsehoods, NPOV violations, and his own odd opinions, which he often tries to hide through the use of the minor edit tag. He just doesn't care and ignores all who have tried, including admins. Unfortunately, while its annoying, but he hasn't totally done anything that is immediately bannable, as he doesn't revert clean ups to his articles, doesn't argue about the issues, etc. Many articles he's made have been out right AfDed or CSed. In his case, simply removing the bad stuff is the only way to handle it. I cut only the parts that were circumspect or pure NPOV violations. There is nothing wrong with leaving the article as a stub until an editor who is actually intending to improve the article touches it, nor does WP:EFFORT count as a valid argument for reverting an edit. Many vandals will throwing in thousands of characters into an article, that doesn't make it worth keeping or prior discussion. There is also a reason there is a note below all edit boxes that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." That includes hacking out everything inappropriate. Collectonian (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- After reviewing his record in some detail, it looks like I may have jumped the gun in terms of my defense of this individuals "work". Maybe it's time for me to take a little 'Wikivacation'! Sorry for wasting both our times. Take care. Deconstructhis (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- No problem and an understandable question. If he'd been anyone else, I would have cleaned up and removed. With him, those who follow behind him have learned to mostly just remove if its circumspect :) Collectonian (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Civility
Since you and I are of exactly the same mind about this issue, that was an attempt at humour, not a reflection of any underlying frustration. Sorry if you took offense. I don't really think you are evil or trying to ruin wikipedia for everyone. Only I am nefariously intent on doing that. Eusebeus (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I realized after reading it that you were attempting to be humourous, its just this issue is becoming so huge and the show fans are getting so rabid about it, that I think most would not get it :) Collectonian 21:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Looney Tunes on TV
Recently, there's been a proposal by Agtaz to create a new article about the Looney Tunes television broadcast history; the response has been enormous, and research and development are now underway. Any comments? Suggestions? Ideas? You are welcome to post your thoughts here at my talk page. Thanks. -- Cinemaniac (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Considering I AfDed the Golden Collections, there really isn't anything I could add. I'd rather see such information in the main Looney Tunes article, but that view is unlikely to be shared. Collectonian 04:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Stco23
There was a reason why I put that one up there. I put it back on there because it has all U.S. Acres characters on them which should not be taking off. Please reconsider.--Stco23 (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- We've had this discussion about excessive images before on the Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers article. The DVD section is extremely short and does not need three images. Having the US Acres characters on them does not make it an appropriate image to include in the section. Rather, considering finding a good group image of those characters to include in the character section (but not the DVD cover image, which would not be good quality for the character section). Collectonian 18:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have had enough with you. I am put both images up for deletion and your image that you resized as well. I don't think you care about images and I wish this was a text site because people like you don't want a lot of images on this site. Bye and don't talk to me again.--Stco23 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- ~shrug~ If you do not like the Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies, that's your choice. You can think I don't care about image if you choose to. I have, in fact, uploaded quite a few images to the site. However, I only upload and use appropriate images per the policies and guidelines. It is also your choice to remove the images since you uploaded them. DVD sections don't really need images at all, I just left one in each article as an attempt to compromise, but its removal is perfectly fine with me. This site is already primarily a text site, not an image farm. Collectonian 18:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- What I am saying about the last question I told you is that you are mean and you don't care about people puting image on this site. Youtube is a better site then this because you can show what you have and you can't here. If you want to get rid of peoples images of things you can do that here but you can't on youtube. Bye.--Stco23 (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't YouTube nor is it an image gallery, it is an encyclopedia! Collectonian 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yep and when am trying to put information down on the DVD's, you delete them because you don't think they belong on this site. I had information about the Garfield and Friends DVD's on this site and you deleted them and they are information, and encyclopedia is about information. Are you being fair or are you trying to get rid of information about articles. bye.--Stco23 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't ignore me because I want to resolve this and I don't want people to ignore me. If I was the boss you would not ignore me.--Stco23 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are most liking resting for now, sorry about the top message but I thought you were ignoring me. When you come back, please answer my question. Bye--Stco23 (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a way to put both Garfield and Friends DVD images together. Let me know. by the way I got rid of those messages that don't mean nothing. Bye.--Stco23 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have put the two images into one image so you don't have to complain about me putting two images on that article. Good bye.--Stco23 (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- The only reason why I put it large is so people can see it better and not to ruin the DVD article. Thanks for considering my new photo.--Stco23 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please i'm sorry for what I did and I let this issue go A long time ago. Those thing I said I changed my mind so don't consider blocking me please. I decided to put those image together so you would complain about the matter. Please reconsider what you are doing. Thank you.--Stco23 (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)