User talk:Woodensuperman/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Batman in film‎‎

A few things:

1. That section has been see-sawing for months, without an apparent consensus for wither nomenclature.
2. The closest there was is an inconclusive thread on its talk page - Batman in film‎‎#Renaming "Dark Knight" or "Nolan" trilogy section. If there is a consensus, please point to it.
3. Yes, there is a current attempt to nail it down - Batman in film‎‎#Section header. Contributing there would have been better that taking it in your own hands to change the section title.
4. Bluntly: At this point I don't have a favored, I just want it settled without the section title being ping-ponged while that is discussed. Ignoring that ongoing discussion does not help end the problem.

- J Greb (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have contributed to the discussion, but as per WP:BRD, the header should be left as it is (and has been for some months) while consensus is reached, rather than changed first and then discussed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I must admit, it's been harrowing! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Blandings

Hi, I have put an In Use tag on the article while I am working on it, and despite this I have just lost a load of work due to an edit conflict. If you could hold on until I have finished and change the tag I would be grateful. Jack1956 (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Non notable tour articles

Hi. You've recently put a bunch of unreferenced or poorly referenced tour articles up for CSD A7. Might it be worth taking the content and putting it in another article? Eg: Forevermore World Tour -> Forevermore (album). The band's official sites should be able to cite the dates, and the album articles seem to be inherently notable because of their chart positions. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. The tours themselves aren't notable per WP:NCONCERT, and we shouldn't be adding indiscriminate lists of tour dates to album articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That guideline is for individual articles on the tours, though. I don't think there's anything wrong with adding a list of tour dates to an associated tour of an existing album article if they're reliably sourced. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there's anything to be gained by adding lists and lists of indiscriminate tourdates on album articles. Maybe a sentence saying there was a tour, and briefly listing the countries visited could be appropriate as per the guideline at WP:NCONCERT, but the whole tour schedule is just WP:FANCRUFT without the third party coverage to meet notability guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Woodensuperman. You have new messages at Talk:1906 (novel)#Merger proposal.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry

I'm sorry Rob, I didn't mean to be so mad. I just wanted to add those two things to the article.

Main article: Railway engines (Thomas and Friends) Main article: Narrow gauge engines (Thomas and Friends)

Because it's a thomas and friends article and these should be listed. I'm sorry for being mad, and I removed my rude comment from the talk page. Do you accept my apology? Supermariokart64 (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek edit

Not clear why you removed the section on the controversy in the film title, highlighting that the controversy has now been noticed outside of wikipedia. There is nothing factually incorrect, there is a reference and I was careful to avoid spelling out the title to avoid further controversy on the issue of capitalisation. Can you explain?

Would you mind if I inserted a section on coverage in popular culture instead? There are plenty of wikipedia pages with those...

BenThuriaux (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no controversy over the title, only here on Wikipedia. It becomes meta, as the actual reference is regarding the talk page of the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Enforcing a Break

Hi, I've created a nice quiet page about the possibility of enforcing a break from debating Star Trek into Darkness. Would you mind taking a look, and giving your opinions? You can find it here, and please feel free to invite anyone you feel would add to the conversation. drewmunn talk 12:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that's that then.

"Star Trek into Darkness" is no more. An administrator saw fit to move it without consensus or comment from the regular editors, and then move-protect it. My post-move arguments have fallen on deaf ears. Nobody seems to care about MOS:CT and the utter mess that has been left behind. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Appalling abuse of priveleges by the admin there. Have you taken it further? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in a fight with an administrator; however, I made sure they were fully aware of my opinion of their actions before walking away. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean. The boasts on his talk page of "I've been on the arbitration committee twice" seem to smack of "I'm right, you're wrong, so there" to me. Probably isn't worth it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For all your effort in trying to maintain some form of order in the aftermath of xkcd-gate. Nobody killed anybody, which I see as something to be proud of. drewmunn talk 10:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Not exactly sure I deserve it! And it's early days yet! --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

We've got through the worst of it, hopefully! drewmunn talk 10:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think you should arbcom his ass. Regardless of where the page was or where it should be it was a clear abuse of admin privileges if nothing else. Given the "no consensus" close and the move protection, two admins had in effect said the page shouldn't be moved at this stage, and his action existed outside of every procedure we have to resolve these sorts of disputes. Betty Logan (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering it. Going to see if Scjessey has taken any further steps. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree that he was out of order; even if there was no history on the matter, he gave nowhere near enough time for consensus. I said somewhere else that I left the page for 8 hours of sleep, and return to find it moved. However, I'm currently taking a back seat, as are quite a few of the original editors, because our knowledge of the subject history is falling on deaf ears, and xkcd-gate editors are causing all kinds of problems for us. We were happy as it was for the time being, and don't want to get into unnecessary arguments. All that said, I'll happily chip in if you decide to take action against him; you can't even use WP:BRD on someone who's protected their change against revert. If it hasn't already, it may be worth taking it to another Admin. drewmunn talk 11:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've placed my concerns on his talk page. Let's see if he responds and take it from there. --Rob Sinden (talk)

If you do take things through regular WP:DR, there's a small concern. You see, the WP:DR processes examine conduct by *all* of the parties involved, not just the party against whom the complaint was lodged.

Now let it be known that prior to Mackensen's actions, the page had evidently been (mis)managed to such a degree that international media were reporting on it.

I would be very curious to see the outcome of those DR procedures, should someone try to start them. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a disgraceful comment to make, and makes no attempt to assume good faith. Perhaps you are concerned at what people might think of how you edited MOS and then immediately tried to impose the new guidelines? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't accused anyone of anything yet. O:-) And I have not attempted to impose any MOS guidelines at any point in recent history, as evidence will show.

In the mean time, thank you for your comment. :-) Is there anything you would like to add? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You said the page had been "mismanaged", which implies a coordinated effort to disrupt. That's not assuming good faith, is it? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

mismanagement: "management that is careless or inefficient". I'm not quite sure how you can both carelessly mismanage and yet efficiently coordinate something at the same time.

We do both agree that the end result was quite disruptive ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. A great shame, since the editors were moving toward a reasonable consensus just fine before all the heavyhandedness by administrators wrecked it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if that is exactly true, we still ultimately ran out of time. :-(

And there is certainly ample reason to at least suspect it is not exactly true, correct?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ran out of time? What time limit are you referring to? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The invisible one where we ended up in the news. Just to be sure, you didn't somehow miss that, did you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said repeatedly yesterday, consensus was overridden because of a webcomic. WP:CONSENSUS is supposed to trump WP:COMMONNAME (which barely applies anyway). But xkcd put a few noses out of joint so it became necessary for someone to abuse their sysop position. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So is your position that User:Xkcd misread the situation entirely, and all this is a misunderstanding, then? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Stranger things have happened, though not very often.

My position is that xkcd is a webcomic designed to get a few laughs with the liberal application of satire. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia's core policy of consensus. Why are you deliberately asking me stupid questions that seem determined to aggravate the issue still further? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

XKCD is a very influential web-comic, mostly because the writer is intelligent and typically right. Several sites including Reddit picked up the story from XKCD, so now we're on the internet news aggregaters. You see how that goes.

The situation can't be much worse than it already was.

Right now I'm just asking questions and seeing where they lead. Hopefully to some insight on how to improve the situation or prevent similar situations in future, but at least answers provide me with evidence for any RFC or RFAr, should anyone wish to open one. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. So it is your opinion that extra-wiki comics and Reddit carry more influence than Wikipedia editors? And you further saying that you are deliberately antagonizing me in the hope that I will say something you can use to defend yourself at some future RFC/U or whatever? Wow. You have a really weird approach to Wikipedia. I'm going to stop talking to you now because it is clear you are just trolling. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't have to get so personal, especially not on someone else's talk page! My personal opinion is that xkcd satirised the discussion, and most probably didn't do so with the purpose of causing such a debacle. I doubt that we'd reached our compromise when he began writing his comic, and I'm not even sure how much of the actual backstory he read; none of this is of consequence, as it was the action of the readers that caused the resulting friction. Rather than it being anything to do with xkcd's opinion, it's about the contributors and IP editors who arrived here, did or did not read the historical conversations, and added their opinions. Their lack of intimate knowledge of our prior activity, along with their preconceptions gained from the xkcd comic, means they inflamed the situation. drewmunn talk 21:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry Rob — it seems my policy ignorance has set off a debate even more tedious than the one that led to it. I feel awful about it. You must be losing the will to live, but if you top yourself be warned it will probably end up in the Star Trek article! Betty Logan (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this may be the first time we've disagreed ;) I'm wondering where we should make reference to the article they write about the debate we are having about where to put reference to the article they wrote about the debate we were having! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, having read the guideline I can follow the rationale. I saw it had received some impressive secondary coverage, I just didn't give much thought to which article it should go in. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Xkcdreader

You remember GoldenEye? I wish I could do this to him. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

He really isn't listening. Just keeps repeating his arguments in the mistaken belief that if he shouts loud enough he'll get what he wants. And the way he keeps summarising everyone's arguments is misrepresentation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

OMFG this guy. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to throw WP:CIVIL out of the window. (I think you already had though!) --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just suggested he moves onto another article. He's been a member of Wikipedia for a matter of days, and he's racked up around half as many edits as I have since joining in 2007. 300 and something of them are on a talk page, and looking through his edit count, there's only Star Trek I(i)nto Darkness Talk, his own page about the matter, and a wider discussion on it! drewmunn talk 14:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Now he's closing discussions, no doubt because he doesn't like the content. drewmunn talk 14:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to step in and apologize for my outburst on my talk page today. I hope it is apparent how after things like "Jesus f*cking christ. We've just gone over this a million times. ...... Worst. Editor. Ever." it was easy to perceive your "olive branch" as disingenuous. Hopefully we all learned something today about getting along and talking things through, instead of shouting. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Trek

Fist off, I apologise for losing my rag in the last couple of days.

To my mind, since there is no consensus either way, and since the addition is something that clearly doesnt damage the article, and is clearly of interest to some people (if people aren't interested, they won't read it), the default position of an encyclopedia should be to include rather than exclude. Simply having the paragraph in the article will naturally draw more attention to it if and when this is discussed again, and should then make it easier to reach consensus either way. douts (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We all have days when things get a bit much :) The problem is that, per various guidelines, there were a number of objections to the proposed additions. They were not considered encyclopedic by a number of editors (some more vocal than others, admittedly), and any unencyclopedic material is damaging to Wikipedia. Therefore the default position for controversial, or potentially controversial additions would be to not include until there is consensus to do so. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no "Not particularly civil, but nonetheless non-murdering Barnstar", but if there was, I think we'd all deserve one. drewmunn talk 16:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I know I need a drink! --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Make sure it's violently alcoholic, or a really good cup of tea. The former is better. the latter is improved by the addition of spirits. drewmunn talk 17:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Django Unchained

You claimed my additions were "unreferenced" yet both contained direct Wikipedia links to the wikipedia articles proving my point. Are we now saying wikipedia cannot be the reference??Stephencdickson (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference. See WP:CIRCULAR. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That is bizarre...must one then use the references within said articles as THE REFERENCE??Stephencdickson (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Gives a sort of pointless "daisychain effect". Stealing the reference from article A to use in article B?

You should really find a third party reference that specifically discusses the historical inaccuracy in relation to the film itself, otherwise there could be claims of WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely the purpose of Wikipedia is to expand knowledge. Pendantic requirement for references in relation to facts could be expanded to "grass is green" show me your reference... Is something is TRUE surely the only requirement is to prove that it is true but should Common Sense not play a greater role? I enjoy working on Wikipedia and particularly adding in links and cross references... that is what pulls Wikipedia above other sources... True, inaccuracies are what drags it down, but are we not all on the same side here? How about some Constructive Advice? Do you really think my additions were inappropriate or was your only gripe that I cross referenced to Wikipedia rather than an outer source. And, if so, could you not Constructively suggest the correct reference rather than Derstructively just wipe it off???Stephencdickson (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of websites dedicated to factual errors in films, this one for example, and inclusion on Wikipedia of a lot of this material is borderline WP:TRIVIA. However, if you use a respected journalistic source that discusses specifically these historical inaccuracies, you may get round the WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS claims. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS discussion

I think we've both said our piece; what say we give it a rest for a while? The point is to get other opinions, and too great a wall of text may deter other editors from weighing in. Deor (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, I think we might be getting somewhere. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Disney Vault

Reverted your edit due to you did not look at the sources or titles, or check the talk page. One source title: "Disney Opens the Vault to Roll Out 30 New Blu-ray Releases", Pocahontas second source states "Disney's award-winning classic returns in a spectacular 2-disc anniversary edition!" clearly point that it was vaulted. Mulan 's current advertisement on the Peter Pan Diamond Edition shows the Disney Vault at the beginning clearly showing that Mulan was vaulted. 184.58.22.86 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Also The Rescuers Down Under was released in a Two Movie Collection along side The Rescuers which was released from the "vault" according to the "Disney Opens the Vault to Roll Out 30 New Blu-ray Releases" source which clearly means The Rescuers Down Under was also vaulted. 184.58.22.86 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. This just shows that they have been re-released, not in the "vault". The sources are not explicit (in one case) or reliable enough (in the other ) to back up that they were subject to the "rules" of the Disney Vault. I'd suggest that you discuss these changes on the talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) MSN.com any official Disney site or official advertisement is reliable this sounds like a major case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and disputing sources that are reliable and make claim to facts that the person(s) has added because you do not want the page changed. 174.255.50.53 (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The MSN reference is a lazy piece of journalism that mentions the Disney Vault, then goes on to list some Disney releases, but does not make a direct connection between the two. It does not state that The Aristocats (for example) is in the vault. Even if it did, I'd doubt its reliability. And please stop assuming bad faith. I'm watching that page because people keep adding unreliable information. This is a good example of that. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I have went through and removed easily disputable ones that were listed but the rest are sourced correctly, including Mulan, Disney is not know to advertise a film with the vault unless the film is in their vaulting line. I hope this helps. 174.255.50.53 (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've left Mulan in for now but would like to see something more verifiable. And don't you think that this conversation would have been better held at the talk page for the article in question rather than here so that other editors could participate? --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point this out as apparently you have no common sense the title says: "Disney Opens the Vault to Roll Out 30 New Blu-ray Releases" and the titles listed are the 30 movies to be "released from the vault" that is an easy connection to make and I do believe that this is a very very strong case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and would strongly suggest you change your tone and stop removing things that have reliable sources. 174.238.160.63 (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop with the bad faith accusations. That may be what the title of the article says, but it is not backed up in the article. And you only seem to be adding selective titles from that article. What are you basing this judgement on? Why not add all 30? As I said - lazy journalism and cannot be taken as a reliable source. Now - please - take it to the article talk page, not here, so that other editors may contribute. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad faith accusation is calling reliable sources unreliable and lazy journalism. Bad faith is what you are doing. Sorry but you are playing high on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and need to stop thanks. 174.238.160.63 (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Also Mulan trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkjbRNazucw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J61n02hWEzM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDkjMseB5FAQZmww notice the vault at the beginning. 174.238.160.63 (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like for you to look at the Disney vault talk page and look at the IP statement in the In North America section and note it was only interested in sourcing the first 36 Walt Disney animated theatrical releases so ask yourself if you are only looking for the first 36 why add ones you are not caring for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.238.160.63 (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Please address on article talk page, not here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Woodensuperman. You have new messages at Talk:Disney Vault#Unreliable additions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seperate Disney FA lists

Wikipedia:Content forking is not recommended under WP policy. With Disney Feature Animation/Disney Animation Studios (DAS) being the primary feature animation division within Disney mostly DAS productions will be on the list of Disney feature animation list. --Spshu (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss any potential merge on the talk page per WP:BRD and WP:PM. You were only merging part of the page and losing some of the info here. Whilst a content fork is not ideal, there may be a better way to deal with this. P.S. WP:Content forking is a guideline, not policy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So, you need to justify the forking not my ending of it. Spshu (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. We need to discuss how to best handle the merging. There is possible merit for having the more in depth informatation at List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films, and by merging it you have removed some of the information housed on that page, that may not necessarily be relevant on the List of Disney theatrical animated features article. Please propose a merge in order to get a discussion going. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

One, you have invoked WP:BRD which is not policy then deny Wikipedia:Content forking as not policy. We have a stalemate in that regard. Content forking -- which you are denying -- also states "Check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was deliberate." and you have not met jusification: "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." At this point, all you have indicated is a willingness to edit war. Spshu (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. There is a discussion in place which I have contributed to. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Keep up the great work on WDAS article! Tim Week (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. Spshu (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that isn't very friendly or in the spirit of Wikipedia now is it? We all want to improve Wikipedia, and the Disney articles are in a right bloody mess. If we work together, rather than leave an unfriendly comment like that on someone else's talkpage, it makes the editing a hell of a lot easier, and we can be more productive if the environment is pleasant. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you don't seem to want to be friendly. You have been down right hostile, fail to work together, continue to make the Disney article a bloody mess and act in a total unproductive manner. Spshu (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Tim doesn't seem to think so. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walt Disney Animation Studios, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Success (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Policy proposal

I’m not sure if you’d be interested since you stopped responding in our discussion on the matter last week, but in case you are, I’ve proposed a change at WT:AT#Proposal: WP:COMMONNAME should use common orthography. —Frungi (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Woodensuperman. You have new messages at Frungi's talk page.
Message added 20:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Frungi (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shadow King

As we agree that the article is a tad premature for main-space, might you agree that WP:FUTURE instructs that sourcable information on his upcoming plans might be included in the Henry Selick article, and that per deletion policy an incubation of the existing article could take it out of main-space and yet still allow collaborative improvement until a return is merited? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for re-visiting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Woodensuperman. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Article titles.
Message added 04:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Specifically, this response. Frungi (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So, do you have any better examples? Or do you disagree with me about those? —Frungi (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from that discussion for the time being (although watching it closely) - see how it pans out... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bells of Hell Go Ting-a-ling-a-ling

Your edit here. You removed the "aviation films" category from the page. The page does contain a section about the unfinished film. What is wikipedia policy in these situations? - Fantr (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Foreign Church name translation.

Since you like standardization, I though this might be something you would know about or be interested in fixing. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Basilica_churches_in_Rome you will notice the titles are all over the board. Some are translated, some are not. If you click on the articles, quite often they have a translation in their first line. Thoughts? Xkcdreader (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm - WP:EN suggests that we should use English, if this is how these churches are referred to in English language sources. Without trawling through all the references, I don't know what is common practice in these cases. Maybe start a multiple page move discussion and see what other editors think. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, people are claiming the common name in English is Italian. So although the Vatican refers to the churches with English translations, English travel guides and English art history books apparently tend to use/favor the Italian form. From some brief google searches it does seem the Italian names are more popular. From a theoretical standpoint, I am curious what protocol would be if Wikipedia CAUSED a certain name to become more prevalent. What if it wasn't the common name 12 years ago, but now because of the Wikipedia it has become the common name. Xkcdreader (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you should worry about whether Wikipedia caused the churches to be referred to in English language sources by the original Italian. If that's what they're commonly referred to and known as in English language sources, then this is what we should use per WP:EN. The point is for them to be recognisable to our readers. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I was more saying that what name wikipedia chooses can cause ghits to skyrocket, thus a less common name would appear as the common one. No one has provided any evidence either way outside of ghits as to what the actual commonname is. I think the actual confusing part is "Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore" vs "Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore." The name of the Basilica is SMM. I don't think the di/of is part of the name, thus it should probably be translated to English. Does that make sense? Xkcdreader (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I see your point regarding the discrepancy - Basilica of Sant'Agostino vs. Basilica di Sant'Anastasia al Palatino is an example. It's not a field I'm interested in, so I have no experience, but a quick look at Lonely Planet mentions "St Peter’s Basilica and the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano", so in this English language source, the "di" is used. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films was destroyed!

We/I need your help! After much work, effort and dedication, someone found himself the right to destroy the article List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films! They even built a redirect which considered only the films produced since 2007, going against the studio history! (http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/history)

Someone needs to intervene! I tried to revert edits, but I'm being prevented. There is any way to get back the original form? You can help in any way?

I appreciate your consideration and help! Thanks in advance!

Tim Week (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Tim Week

---

UPDATE: The situation is already normalized! Sorry for taking your time! Thank you!

Tim Week (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Tim Week

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. There is still a bit of mess that needs cleaning up due to the nature of the moves and the overwriting of one article over another, but I have requested admin cleanup and have popped something on the user in question's talk page. I appreciate what they're trying to do, but it should probably have been more thoroughly discussed first, and the correct procedures should have been followed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher

You are PAST 3RR, kindly discuss (As i added to with my edit)(Lihaas (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)).

Not at all - I removed Putin twice. And I have been discussing. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read 3RR. NO reverts of more than 3 times in 24 hours. this came after warning. And this is a 2nd warning. Two users have now reverted yu9ou thus the onus is on you(Lihaas (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)).

No - I have not made the same reverts each time. Please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page of the article. You are going against the prediscussed consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

3RR means no more than 3 reverts per day per page regardless of what the reverts were. You have been reported here unless you self revert your actions you will be blocked(Lihaas (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)).

Suprantional/state subsection was removed. Please restore and ill withdraw.(Lihaas (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)).

Sorry, but no. It's unnecessary, and is counterproductive to the move away from the list form that we are all trying to achieve. I feel like you're trying to bully me in order to get your own way (against talk page consensus). It's not really in the spirit of good will is it? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Im not bullying anything. its part of 3rr and you did violate it . discussion first that you dint to. anyhoo...(Lihaas (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)).

Please read my comments at WP:ANEW. If you agree to the terms of my offer, you may accept them there or here. Not responding at all is unacceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Notsensibles

OK, clearly you're right - thanks. It was news to me, but I've been looking at his Facebook page... I'll correct a couple of the linked articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem! I see what you mean by daughter articles now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet another example

I don't want to pile on the thread with more comments of mine, but yet another example: William Shakespeare's Romeo Juliet. Sigh. :) Can't think of a good way to formulate any guidelines in these matters. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's best left on a case-by-case, commonsense basis. I'm not too bothered either way on Marvel's The Avengers, but commonsense should preclude Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures Pacific Rim. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Superman in film table

What is "ridiculous" about using an accurate term?? Other articles do use it, and even if they didn't, so what? This is not a Cast and characters list -- which is one that has to do with the cast of a film. This list obviously has to do with the characters (and the actors who portrayed them) of several different films. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"Portrayers" is not a commonly used term in this context, and less accurate or concise than "cast" or "actor". The table shows the characters and the cast that played them in each film. Therefore "Cast and characters" is a perfectly accurate term, and a common one in these kinds of articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

All right then, taking it to the article talk page. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Guidelines

My edits to the guidelines were an explanation of examples what they are currently, not a change in policy and thus should not require consensus since they simply document and clarify what is current practice and do not propose changes. I was giving an example that the article on the actor is "John Wayne" because that is what he is famous as, rather than "Marion Morison", his birth name, and the article on the singer is "MC Hammer" not "Stanley Burrell." And the article on the Chicago building is its current name, "Willis Tower" rather than the former name "Sears Tower" which is a redirect. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You may find that they are already covered, or are better served elsewhere. For example, the John Wayne, etc., issue was already covered by Lady Gaga, and you were adding information regarding use of alternate titles in the wrong place - this is covered elsewhere. You were also adding things about use of expletives. Would suggest you make any proposals on the relevant talk pages and take it from there, especially seeing as WP:AT is policy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Need opinion

What you think of the Walt Disney Platinum and Diamond Editions page? Look a lot better then it did say: here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.16.119 (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Why Patience ??

Why r u asking Sonicdrewdriver for a barnstar for patience ?? Himanis Das   talk  15:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Dot the i template problem

I noticed the {{MRVdiscuss}} template you added at Talk:Dot the i#Requested move had no link due to a syntax error. I tried to fix it by adding the date (“30” in “2013 April 30”), but that seems to have created a link to the May page instead of April. I’m not sure what’s up with that. Could you take a look? —Frungi (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Django Unchained - why you delete everything round eye

there are so many gaps .. i am trying to fill them in... for example

no mention of don johnson in the movie

no mention of the first bounty no mention of the 2nd bounty

no mention of Quentin Tarantino scene and explosion

no mention of two shootouts with Django..

no mention of quotes that are critical to movie

i could go on but you delete everything...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.154.70.134 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2013‎

I did put a note on your talk page about this. Per WP:FILMPLOT, film plots should not be excessively detailed. Would suggest you took any proposed additions to the article talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Django Unchained - you delete major points

you state that

film plots should not be excessively detailed.

but you cut out the most basic of the most basic details......

and you ask proposed additions to the article talk page.

why not put them on your page since you delete the most basic of the most basic.......

a review for everyone one to see - this did win not just one,, but two oscars !!!

not just fluff,, but major major items,, the first 20 minutes of the movie is cut out thanks to you... you did a great job at totally chopping it up -

basic facts, like

basic info on the 1st scene with dr. king schultz basic mention of the scene with the 1st bounty

basic mention of the scene with don johnson ( a major character!

no mention of two shootouts with Django..

basic mention of the two shootout scenes with the Django

and lets not forget the one scene with the director

Quentin Tarantino & the scene on how is is exploded in typical fashion for a  Quentin Tarantino ... what a great scene .. fantastic  explosion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.154.70.134 (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 

All I have done is revert your additions. Have you read WP:FILMPLOT? Do you not see how your additions were making the plot summary too long? If you want to propose changes, take it to the article's talk page and get consensus from other editors. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Partially disambiguated titles

Hi Rob,

Thank you for informing me of the discussion you started about partially disambiguated titles. Because this issue goes beyond the scope of local consensus, I have restarted the discussion here. Any input you are willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rob,

Thank you for contributing to the discussion. Unfortunately, the location was incorrect yet again, and so has been restarted at the Village Pump here.

Neelix (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Technical requests

Hi Rob. In the future, please don't make technical move requests for articles which are the subject of ongoing RMs (cf.). I should've noticed this before I carried the request. I understand that you wanted to revert to the stable title per WP:BRD, but it becomes very confusing to have an RM that lists a current title different from the actual one. Had the request at MAVEN (spacecraft) closed as no consensus, a good closer would've reverted it to the stable title anyway, especially if requested to do so. I must accept part of the blame for actually making the move, but the request was not in line with the instructions at WP:RM/TR—the presence of the RM means there's sufficient controversy to leave it to discussion. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Tantor edition of Behind the Candelabra

Hello, we are trying to add the factual information that Tantor Audio / Tantor Media has just published an updated edition of Behind the Candelabra: My Life with Liberace, by Scott Thorson. My colleague Cassandra McNeil has tried several times to add this information in compliance with the rules. She has neutralized the entry, and sourced it using one of the previously accepted reliable sources. All have been reverted and you have now asked her not to edit further, so I am now taking this up. Can you please advise on how we may get this factual information acceptably added? Thank you. -Allan Hoving — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.43.241 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'd strongly suggest that you read WP:COI before adding anything related to your company to Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems the information was being added to the lede, which would not be appropriate. If there were a section on different editions in the article it might be appropriate there, but only if it is a notable edition (and this could be backed up by third party sources). But you'd need to be careful not to put WP:UNDUE weight on the specific edition by adding just this edition if it was no more or less notable than another. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very helpful. Since the reissue includes a new afterword by the author (who is portrayed in the forthcoming movie), I believe it will clear that bar.--AH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.43.241 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing move reviews

Hi Rob. Thanks for your fix. This was my first move review close. Can you look at Wikipedia:Move review/Administrator instructions and see if you agree with the wording there? I was uncertain how many equal signs should appear on each side of the header before I hit 'save'. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure to be honest, as the template was substituted, so I can't see what happened. I just spotted some errant "===="s so removed them. I *think* you probably didn't remove the "===="s when adding the template (as recommended in the instructions), and this is what caused the problem. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

re: IP reverting all edits by User:Trivialist

Thanks for placing this at ANI. I caught a few things, but you did a much better job. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Listing candidates

Hello Robsinden. Next time you create an FLRC, per the instructions, please could you tell all relevant contributors and wikiprojects (not just the list talk page), and could you make sure you add the nomination to WP:FLRC otherwise no-one will every find it. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(It would also have been courteous of you to let us know that you don't normally edit at the weekends. As such I've had to go to the trouble of reorganising WP:TFL for Monday since with your first few edits ever on this list you've tagged it with a merge template and sent it to FLRC, a mere three days before it appears on the main page. And asked us all to AGF on it... You may also like to weigh in at List of sieges of Gibraltar which is currently an FLC with support from an established editor, but which would appear to match the criteria you've applied to Flashman to declare it 'not a list'.) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC))

Thanks - I had no intention of disrupting anything, but to me, the arguments on the talk page of it being a "list article" are holding it back, and adding the "Adaptations" section (and possibly other sections) from Harry Paget Flashman to The Flashman Papers is an appropriate suggestion and is the obvious location to house the information, as it is an article about the series as a whole. As you suppose, I do think that List of sieges of Gibraltar goes beyond the realm of "list article" and have made a suggestion to that effect on the page. I'm sorry that you think I've been acting in bad faith - believe me, that is not my intention... --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you'd been part of the FLC process so you could understand that many potential FAs are thrown out for having significant list content. FLC are happy to take those articles as lists, and as has been adequately demonstrated to you with regard to Flashman, the community have gone along with that. Your tagging and nomination for delisting of the FL that was promoted only two months ago will inevitably draw criticism. I would encourage you, if you feel strongly, to get involved with the featured list/article processes rather than just wait until they're just about to go to main page before slapping tags all over them. That's caused a significant amount of disruption (and work for me) to fix it up because we can't main page lists that have such maintenance tags. And it is a striking coincidence that you've waited until three days beforehand before making all these comments and adjustments. Perhaps the second coincidence of the day. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you wish to be consistent, please FLRC 84th Academy Awards too. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in regularly contributing to FLC. And that I hadn't should not preclude me from trying to improve an article when I come across one. The reason I started trying to edit The Flashman Papers is because I was looking at it after watching the film of Royal Flash on Thursday night - nothing more sinister than that. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eskilstuna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Bush (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mara Davi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages White Christmas and The Toxic Avenger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Skakkle/sandbox/nigga

Hello Robsinden. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Skakkle/sandbox/nigga, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly an attack page or negative, unsourced BLP. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

hello, so can the deletion notice be removed from my page now? (note, I moved the page before I found this post) thanks, skakEL 07:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Woodensuperman. You have new messages at Captain Assassin!'s talk page.
Message added 09:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 09:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Take a look

I think you need to take a look at Theory of Everything (film), Theory of Everything (2014 film) and Theory of Everything (2015 film). No attack but what they have to do with Stephen Hawking. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 07:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see nothing at the target that relates to this film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant that too. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 10:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

User again created the redirect Theory of Everything (film). -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 06:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a movie biography about Stephen Hawking [1]. Rusted AutoParts 14:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing on Hawking's page to indicate this. If you're going to create the redirect, ensure that there is information at the target. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Which it is now, why are you still trying to get it deleted? Rusted AutoParts 16:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So, refusing to provide a reason even when I ask? Mature, bud. It's in a correct location, it does not warrant deletion. Rusted AutoParts 17:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WHERE IS YOUR GODDAMN EXPLAINATION, ASSHOLE?! Rusted AutoParts 20:04 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Theory of Everything (2014 film)

Hello Robsinden. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Theory of Everything (2014 film), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this is an acceptable redirect as there is a sourced reference to the film in the target article. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move of Deadmaus

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Deadmaus#Requested_move_3_.28to_.22Joel_Zimmerman.22.29. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man sequel title

I haven't even noticed or thought of that. Nice catch. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Silence (2015 film)

Hello Robsinden. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Silence (2015 film), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: there is sourced information about this film at the target. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay - I missed that - it was one of many redirects that Captain Assassin had created, and I missed that this one actually was sourced among all the unsuitable ones... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Partly agree

Hi Rob, yes, "forum" is wrong more, wanted more like "broader scope" about characters/language. As for placement, it probably isn't the best location, but may also not be wrong - as {{Talk_header}} says common sense may be used for location. Widefox; talk 16:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For apparently being the only other person on Wikipedia who understands the thought processes of people who speak English.

 — TORTOISEWRATH 19:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't believe there's even an argument to be had for the Chinese usage. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Feng

Rob, Did you just delete/merge a sourced article, an article which has a zh.wp interwiki? I'm going to go out and eat something. When I come back I expect to see that if you have done so it will be restored. If you want to delete an article then a merge RfC or AfD is the way.

I would also like as a courtesy to link one or two articles you yourself have created so I can have a look at your work as an article contributor/creator. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes - you are making WP:POINTY and disruptive edits whilst discussions are taking place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing pointy - I am trying to fix the Feng list. How is that disruptive. We have articles on notable names. This one and 19,000 print references in Google Books. Are you saying that all work on fixing Bmotbmot edits has to stop because you say so. Can you please show me that you have contributed to WP China or WP Anthroponymy articles prior to this? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The unagreed disambiguators are pointy. Let's reach a resolution on how to proceed with disambiguation before introducing new articles which do not conform to one method or another and include characters that are against policy. Also, maybe centralise the discussions while we both wait for _dk's response on this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please show me a couple of contributions you have made to China or anthroponymy before your edits moves and merges today. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Hi. As you know that Drew and me are well known to each other for a while in Wikipedia and also outside of it (the time when you posted "WTF?" in his talk page and i explained you). So, it reveals that he can edit my user page also including my editing works which i tell him to overlook and so can i. Anyways thanks for your message, i only edit Drew's user page and none other than him. Drew - Please comment something regarding this matter.Himanis Das  talk 15:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how I can comment in any way that isn't explained on your talk page - do not edit another editor's user pages unless you have their permission to do so. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It was really appreciative.Himanis Das  talk 15:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

sorry

why merge page?

your new page is nothing, just blank

if your merge page and other page, must creative story in page,

just, merge, merge, merge? it is all other surname, why merge?, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmotbmot (talk • contribs) 04:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

---

i can see a sub page in page,

thanks, your right,

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Feng (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jiang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

WTF

I thought you agreed to wait until consensus was determined before making changes like this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you not see Chris's replies?[2][3] There needs to be justification for a split, not justification for a merge. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I mean, how useful was this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I am under the belief that consensus is not determined until there is closing commentary. I thought he was a discussant not a closer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

He's advising that we don't need a formal edict on this.[4] --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Look - here's one I just merged: Template:ARIA Award for Best Female Artist. Not one of yours, but this had been made up of six component parts!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• If you are unsplitting on the basis of a TFD, please link that TFD in your edit summaries.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It was closed "no consensus" without prejudice against just doing it without consensus, but with suggestion to have further discussion. Is it your plan to just do it?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think so. I'm not going to seek them out though, just when I find them. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I am not sure what this means. There are categories for these things. They are just sitting there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Navbox

First, just because other navboxes are doing it doesn't mean that it should be done. There is nothing that says it MUST be done. Secondly, I completely disagree that it "tidies it up". That would imply that it is currently disorganized or "untidy", which it is neither. I believe it is better this way, because readers can clearly see the links, as opposed to having links in the titles that are easily missed. If you noticed, "Wiki books" goes to a general page for Wiki books, not the Smallville books. Thus, it leaves the impression that "Episodes" and "Characters" would go to a general page on TV episodes and characters. It's much better to be clear with the links, and they fit nicely in their appropriate sections. The nav box is not over-crowded, so there isn't a need to trim it. It has been this way for years, and works just fine. Their current placement is more user friendly, has been established for years, and is not violating any guideline (thus, more reasons in favor of keeping them there). I don't know why you keep trying to push relocating the links to an area that you desire (not an area that is more practical, or an area that is required).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that Wikibooks link shouldn't be there, as any article that appears in a navbox should have the navbox transcluded on it. It seems that we just have a difference of opinion on this - I think the navboxes look a lot tidier and natural the other way, you don't. It's not worth fighting over it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy you removed that wikibooks. That was an annoyance that was a fight a couple of years ago.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10