User talk:TMC1982

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello TMC1982 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

And now you're a vandal? [1] Oh, how clever of you. The JPS 20:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All That

I've uploaded an improved version of your All That image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Allthatfan.jpg) at [[2]].

[edit] 1994 baseball strike

Good edit. Can you clafiy a few things.

"Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos on the other hand, announced that his team wouldn't use replacement players. On 20 March, the Orioles canceled the remainder of their spring training games because of the team's refusal to use replacement players"

This makes it seem like Angelos decsion in the first sentence, the team's in the second.


"...an agreement by February 6. Unfortunately, President Clinton's deadline came and went with no resolution of the strike. Just five days earlier, the owners agreed to revoke their arbitrarily imposed salary cap and return to the old agreement."

This makes it seem like an agreement was reached.

Wins Losses WP GB Payroll

Can you expand GB and WP?

Cheers, Rich Farmbrough 10:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All That articles

This message is about the articles relating to the variety show all that that you created: What is the significance of the articles List of All That opening montages, List of quotes from Vital Information, List of All That mini scripts for skits and List of quotes from Everyday French With Pierre Escargot!, to wikipedia and its goals as a free encyclopedia? I can't get Nickelodeon here in Australia, but my feeling from reading the article about the TV show is that it does not have a large enough following to warrant articles about very minor details of it, like a list of quotes or the transcripts. I am tempted to list these articles on articles for deletion, where they may be removed from the wikipedia database altogether. However, I am open to input about the articles in the next few days, to give you a chance either to defend them or list them on AFD or speedy deletion (because some are your own work only and can be speedily deleted if you want) first. If you need somewhere to host this information, try finding or creating your own wiki on all that, or create a personal website which cannot be edited by others. I'll be watching this page and my own talk page for your response, so feel free to reply at either page. I want a response within the next three days though, in case other wikipedians find these articles and list them on AFD. If I don't get a response within the next few days, I'll list them on AFD myself, as such articles are not good for wikipedia's image. Also, please provide more context to your articles and use wiki formatting. I have done this at List of All That opening montages. Thanks. Graham 11:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)



I really don't understand why the extra information bothers you (especially for somebody who can't get Nickelodeon)? The lists (just like the one on all of the notable All That characters) that I made aren't intended to be a main page. All of the lists that I provided are meant to be give a closer look (material that wouldn't fit on the main page) at the history of the show. I'm surprised that you rather have the information removed all together than have them say, merge with the main article.

The significance of the article List of All That opening montages is that shows how the cast has evolved over the years. Article on Saturday Night Live (the grown up version of All That) has a similar article on how has a descriptions of all of its opening montages. I'm surprised that you don't want a list of the montages despite the fact that I presume, you have never watched All That. Also, why not put out a list of the best and most memorable quotes (especially from the golden age of All That) of the show?

Well, I just don't like having articles on very small facets of fiction, as that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. However, if you added some of the text you wrote above to the list of All That opening montages, it would give the article more context and help a reader who does not know about the show. As for the quotes, straight quotes belong in wikiquote. However, quotes are OK in an encyclopedia as long as you can give context to them and really show their significance. For example, Bart chalkboard gags from The Simpsons, is a good example of an article about a TV show with quotes, but it provides context to them. Graham 08:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Pyor

I think I may have messed up the article reverting what I thought was vandalism... you may want to check through the history for any damage I've done. Sorry! Dan100 (Talk) 22:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

User:SWD316/PW welcome

SWD316 talk to me 04:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Stanley Cup Broadcasters

I am going to present you with the award for Awesomeness for researching which broadcasters showed NHL games. If you know more, plus add, or just tell me. Nick Dillinger 06:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Blanking

On 26-Jan, you blanked Gayle Gardner. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If this was the result of a broken edit, you may wish to make the correct edits. If you believe the page should be deleted, please follow the deletion procedures. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 14:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated from my talk page: I have no idea. You would have to take that up with the person who redirected it (check the page history). If you disagree, feel free to find a different redirect, replace it with a stub article, or nominate the redirect for deletion. Each of those can be a valid choice and avoids leaving a blank page. If you choose to do any of those and have questions, let me know. -- JLaTondre 23:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major League Baseball television contracts

Please don't remove the cleanup tag [3], unless the article has actually been cleaned up! Please note that the article still grossly exceeds the recommended page length, per Wikipedia:Article size.

The point of the cleanup tag is to indicate that the article is in need of attention so that interested editors can pitch it to work on it. So please don't remove it in the future, unless the article has actually been cleaned up per the recommendations on WP:CU for this particular article.

Thanks, --Madchester 06:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, please do not remove the cleanup tag, until the appropriate revisions have been made. The article is still 57 kB, and the sections still need to be streamlined to adher to WP:MOS.
Any more such disruptions could result in a block, per WP:BLOCK#Disruption. Thanks, --Madchester 01:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that according to Wikipedia:Ownership, no one owns articles on Wikipedia. Per the guidelines, If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. --Madchester 22:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive categorisation

I see you've added a number of people to Category:South Park characters. I feel that people who have been parodied on such a cartoon show shouldn't be added to such a category. Excessive categorisation just confuses matters, and these people didn't choose to be on these cartoons. A category should show why the person was notable - this is something which happened because they were notable, and didn't contribute to them being notable. There is already List of celebrities on South Park (which includes those parodied) - that would be more appropriate.-Mr Adequate 08:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop uploading

copyrighted images until you have a better understanding of fair use. ed g2s • talk 18:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've since provided the copywrite information along with the links (stuff that I've always done), so stop acting like you dictation my editing style! I don't need somebody way back in England harrassing me!!! User:TMC1982
Given the number of notices on this page, clearly not. You have also uploaded several screen grabs for one page. Compiling "galleries" like this is not fair use. I don't see how me living in England has anything to do with it. Try and remain civil. ed g2s • talk 13:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
"you're first message contained exclaimation points"
No, it didn't. I simply asked you to stop uploading images.
"...(they're screencaps). They're hardly copywritten material since I in essense, own them."
That is wrong. Screencapping a DVD does not magically transfer the copyright to you, unfortunately.
"Since when did wikipedia have a rule that you can only upload one image per article/page?"
If you read the Wikipedia:Fair use fair use article I previously linked to:
3. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. ed g2s • talk 13:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

I noticed you've made a lot of great contributions to wikipedia, but don't usually add edit summaries. Here is some information on edit summaries in case you are not familiar with them.

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

— ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Yet another image copyright problem

Hi,

You incorrectly labeled your recent picture upload "Image:A kirby i.jpg" as a "CopyrightedFreeUse" image. The image is from ESPN. Everything they publish is copyrighted and nothing is available for us to use.

Look, you can't just grab images off the Web and upload them to Wikipedia. It violates copyright law, and is a violation of our policies. Please stop it. Tempshill 06:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can tell what is copyrighted and what isn't. Here's how.
1. EVERYTHING ON THE WEB IS COPYRIGHTED unless something on the page specifically says it isn't. Everything is also copyrighted if you read it in a book, magazine, or newspaper, or if you hear it on the radio, on a CD, or on an mp3 file.
2. If something is copyrighted, you may upload it anyway if it is licensed for use under the GFDL, under certain Creative Commons licenses, or if it is in the public domain (which usually means it was published in 1923 or earlier). Note that almost nothing on the Web is licensed in this way.
That's it! Please stop ignoring all the warnings above and start acting in good faith - stop uploading images. It's all copyrighted out there and you don't have the rights. Tempshill 06:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for halting the uploads. If I sound like I'm shouting, it's probably because looking at this talk page it's apparent that this has been a longstanding problem with many of your uploads. Thanks - Tempshill 07:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I was looking over the New Images gallery at Special:Newimages and the baseball photo looked like a typical copyvio upload, in this case a baseball photo that was obviously professional. You're not the only editor who has uploaded copyrighted images; unfortunately it happens a lot because people think that other stuff they find on the Web is available for them to use in this way. Tempshill 07:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superman actors?

You have asked for the category "Superman actors" to be "populated". What exactly do you mean? Wahkeenah 00:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Aha. In other words, you need the list to be expanded. Unfortunately, I am not all that familiar with the more recent series. But I get what you mean now, and I'll do what I can. Thanks! Wahkeenah 05:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 0% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 07:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Series section expansion

Hi. I notice you added a request for expansion for the highlight section of World Series but there's no entry in WP:RFE. What sort of expansion were you looking for? I scaled back this article because it had become almost unreadable and was saturated with POV like "the greatest comeback in history" and "the most exciting World Series in history", etc. I tried to make it a simpler summary article with the details left in the individual years' articles. What do you think? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Anniversary

Happy 1st Wikipedia Anniversary! Sorry to see you temporarily blocked. You are a valuable contributor. --Zpb52 05:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scary movie actors

I saw that you'd added the "Scary movie actors" category to that of Kendra Wilkinson and the other women from The Girls Next Door. There's nothing about movie acting in their bios -- can you please explain? --Elonka 23:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. However, I'd probably avoid adding them to the "Scary Movie Actor" category until they've actually, well, acted in a scary movie. ;) It probably is, however, worth adding a "Future projects" section to their respective pages, that lists the movie, and the source of the information. I'm happy to help with that, or would you like to do it? --Elonka 23:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:003photo 01.jpg

For your information, I have tagged this image you have uploaded as having no source information. It is obviously a photo of a sign or banner, not the actual graphical image of the logo itself, and thus does not qualify as a Tv-program-logo. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have ifded it as it is a Getty image, no Getty images are permitted to be used. Arniep 22:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PLEASE ASSIST, WRESTLING FANS OF WIKIPEDIA

Me and the soon to be departing (hopefully not) Moe Epsilon are setting up a project to deal with the music of this great business. It will be Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of wrestling. Join if you are remotely interested - every little helps! Thanks. Kingfisherswift 17:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family Guy

Please cite sources for the various Family Guy categories to which you contribute; neither categories nor TV shows are immune from the rule of Wikipedia:Verifiability.--M@rēino 23:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Why the hostility? I do, in fact, watch the show; I've seen almost every episode. I just think that you need sources, or else we'll have to delete a lot of names from, for example Category:Family_Guy_actors, b/c a lot of the names that you're listing aren't Family Guy actors. AFAIK, they're either impersonations or cameos. --M@rēino 14:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Scooby-Doo actors

This category has been nominated for deletion by User:Hawkestone. You should view the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_1#Category:Scooby-Doo_actors and vote keep if you don't want it to be deleted. Tim! 18:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Catch

I removed the merge markers because they were added without any reason given or any discussion. But regardless, these should be 2 articles. "The Catch" is famous itself, perhaps more than the rest of the world series, and deserves its own article. That said, the article about the world series could I'm sure stand to be improved. It'd be great if some summary of the famous catch was added there.

I'll leave the merge markers there for now, but please remove them yourself if you can't give any rationale for a merge at talk:The Catch --jacobolus (t) 04:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sports flops

I put a question onto the Category talk:Sports-related flops talk page. Maybe you could answer it if you have a chance.--Mike Selinker 05:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Series teams

I thought I'd ask you a question I've posted to several other talk pages since last month, as you posted the request for populating the World Series championship team categories: Are these categories really necessary? I can't help thinking it would be more economical to simply include the roster of the championship team in the article for that year's World Series (most of the WS articles could use some serious expansion). There's already something of a glut of categories on some articles, including those for baseball players with numerous All-Star appearances. (Between All-Star games and WS champions alone, Yogi Berra would end up with 25 categories, in addition to another 15 already on his page.) I don't think it's advantageous to have that many categories on an article; at some point, it gets difficult to wade through them, and individual categories become easy to miss. Besides, these are categories where the potential number of articles is only about 25, with no possibility of more additions later; categories should (ideally) be continually expandable as more articles qualify, and that can't happen with these. I just think it would be counter-productive to start the categories and delete them later if they're simply repeating material from the WS articles. MisfitToys 20:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:1980 Philadelphia Phillies World Series Championship Team

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I saw this category (that you created) at Category:Underpopulated categories, so I decided to remedy that. I used this roster and added the category to every player that we have an article for; then I removed the {{popcat}} template from the category. Just thought I'd give you an update. :o) Thanks, and let me know if you ever need any help! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bring Me to Life

I was just wondering why you placed a clean up tag on this article?--Childzy 15:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weekend Update

I removed the cleanup template from Weekend Update since you didn't identify any clean up issues on the talk page, as requested. If you choose to re-institute it, please explain why on Talk:Weekend Update. Thanks. 66.167.136.228 10:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC).


[edit] ECW article.

Well, it's because the IMDb link is already in the article. It's redundant to have two of the same link in the same article, don't you think? Now that you mention it, we gotta find a place for those other links too. dposse 15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don Denkinger

Actually, no, they are not relevant. They are certainly relevant as to the loss of the Cardinals in the World Series, just as the call by Denkinger is. However, none of those things are relevant to the man himself. Information on the series belongs in the page on the 1985 World Series. Information on Denkinger belongs on his page. The fact that Coleman was injured for the series or that the Cardinals lost Game 7 have nothing to to with Denkinger or his call; they only have relevance as to why the Cards lost the series. Indrian 23:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it is not the information itself that is bad, but the placement of it on Denkinger's page. The facts that are relevant to him are that he made a bad call, the call cost the Cardinals the series, and a lot of Cardinals fans got pissed. Whether or not that criticism was justified and whether or not there were other moves that cost the Cardinals the series as well is not an issue that needs to be discussed on his page, and even if some information is placed there, it should not be under a separate heading and should not be a summary of a television show on the topic. Much of this information is fine for an analysis on the series, but does not inform as to Denkinger's role in it. Indrian 23:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so much for civility. You have now shown us your true colors in engaging in a personal attack against wikipedia policy. If this continues, I will consider seeking review of your behavior with the admins. Returning to our conversation at hand which I will keep civil despite my extreme temptation not to at this point, I am well aware what happened in the 1985 World Series and I am quite well-informed about many baseball matters. The reasons given in that documentary have nothing to do with the call. Matters such as Coleman getting run over by the tarp machine or Lasorda going with Niedenfur too many times in the NLCS could have placed the Cardinals in a situation where the call did not occur, but they do not relate directly to Denkinger and his blown call. This can all be discussed in great detail in the article on the 1985 World Series, where such discussion is more apprpriae and which the Denkinger article can link to. The Denkinger article should stick to the umpire himself and not the bigger picture of the World Series. Indrian 03:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the personal attack I referred to was your accusation of me not knowing anything about baseball. It was a mild attack, which is why I was not going to do anything about it, but I just wanted to make clear my desire to keep the conversation civil. I think you are misunderstanding my point. All of those things on the show are valid "what-ifs" that could have changed the outcome and deserve to be analysed on the page devoted to the series, but Denkinger's page is not the place for what-ifs, only what actually happened. The poor fielding by the Cardinals that compunded the bad call is already mentioned in the article, but the fact that the Cardinals would have won but for a bad call is irefutable and the fact that Cardinals fans got mad is too. I personally think that this is incident was not an ideal choice for the producers of the show. Unlike say the Buckner incident in which the manager, JOhn McNamara, and Calvin Schiraldi are equally responsible for the loss, only Darrel Porter can share the distinction with Denkinger in making an error in judgment in that game that caused that result, and the article already mentions that. The other issues have to deal with the larger series and not with the call itself, which is why the page on the World Series is the better place to discuss them. Indrian 04:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Clean-up?

Why did you put a clean-up notice on the KITS article, in this section? - Bagel7 07:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Template

My bot, Alphachimpbot, has just modified some of your cleanup templates. {{Cleanup|MONTH YEAR}} is not a valid template. Use {{Cleanup-date|MONTH YEAR}} instead. Just figured that I would tell you. --Alphachimp talk 17:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flash (comics)

Please do not remove appropriate categories when you add a new one, as you did here.[4] CovenantD 14:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural Wonder Woman Clean-Up?

What exactly needs a clean up on the Cultural Wonder Woman page? Artemisboy 15:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Batman

Thanks for editing, but I feel I need to let you know that quotations marks are used for story titles, not italics. Additionally, "The" is not capitalized before a character's name unless at the start of a sentence. Thanks again. --Chris Griswold 08:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Sports-related flops

Hello TMC1982. There has been some discussion about this category's subjectivity on its talk page, and I wanted to let you know that I have listed it at Categories for discussion. I've suggested that it be deleted, but I am open to other suggestions. Please join the discussion and share your thoughts here. Regards. ×Meegs 09:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] DC Comics category removal

I'm curious as to why you've been removing the "TV shows based on DC Comics" category. To my knowledge the category is legitimate and hasn't been deleted. Tarzan and the Super 7 was a good removal as this show has no direct DC connection, but Birds of Prey is based upon a comic book and I think you also removed it from a few more obvious shows. Is there something I missed? 23skidoo 15:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It probably would have been helpful to indicate this in the edit summary. Cheers. 23skidoo 00:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Teen Choice Awards

I am nominating this category for deletion on the grounds that its entries should go in "Television awards". Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_29.--Runcorn 19:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Incredible Hulk (1996 TV series)

You are making some very strange edits to the above article. You know that posts at online forums don't count as reliable sources (per WP:RS), and even if they did, you don't quote them in full as a reference. How do you see this article progressing? Regards, Mr Stephen 08:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Likewise your changes to Fantastic Four (1994 TV series) and Iron Man (TV series). Mr Stephen 08:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You wrote "I'm trying to provide a strong emphasis to a point of view (from the comic book fans themselves, who are the best experts on this subjects) that was stated on the article(s)." I'm unconvinced that this is the way to do it, and I see that your changes to The Incredible Hulk have been reverted. Please try to get your point across by staying within the various guidelines for articles. Mr Stephen 10:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I have no intention to misrepresent what you say, but I'm at a loss as to how I have taken your words out of context. Please let me know what you mean. Regards, Mr Stephen 11:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

Hi. Just to let you know that adding the {{sprotect}} tag to an article does not actually apply protection. To do that you need to contact an administrator or list the page at WP:RPP. Please don't add the tag unless the page is actually protected. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Batsuit Images

It was my belief (and that of others on the talk page) that there were just way too many images. It wasn't meant as a diss on movies vs comics, just of appropriateness of the sheer amount of images. Moderation was all. I left in all the belt images, but I see someone removed those too... I'm going to put them back in, since THOSE aren't likely to be copyvio. Please talk on the Batsuit talk page so more of us can join in :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:All that

Thats the beauty of wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit: you don't have to be a 'loyal fan' or an 'expert' in the field. All in all it sounds pretty POV to me, and you might say that BECAUSE im not a loyal fan i can make a NPOV assessment on the issue. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 17:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please use the edit summary function

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! Her Pegship 05:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Batman locations

I'm emptying out the category per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_10#Category:Batman_locations_to_Category:DC_Comics_locations. Please do not populate it again without discussion. CovenantD 21:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Actors who portrayed Batman

This was deleted through the Categories for Discussion process. Please do not recreate it or add articles to it. CovenantD 05:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Daytona 500 broadcasters

I saw your message on my talk page...I think you meant to send that message to User:Crabapplecove as he/she nominated it, not me. I simply voted on it, and I voted to delete.

The AfD closed August 3, and if you were unhappy with the result deletion review is always an option, although I'm not sure if they would accept a review at such a late date. SliceNYC 14:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no benefit in adding irrelevant comments to the talk pages of everyone who took part in an AfD. Several suggestions were made during the AfD and you should consider adoptong one of them. BlueValour 15:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actors who portrayed

Hello TMC! I do understand your views. I hope you understand that no ill will is meant by the deletion of those categories (and it wasn't just yours that were deleted). If a particular actor deserves special focus, as you suggest, it would be better achieved by working up an article to "featured" status, or creating your own fan page on another site. Cheers, Her Pegship 15:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you understand that I created those Actors/Actresses who portrayed... subcatagories because the Batman actors and Superman actors catagories were getting severely large.

Well, perhaps if I had been told that was the reason, I could have understood it. To say I "can't understand" it implies that that possibility had been suggested to me. As a counter-question I could ask why can't you understand what is better to have as a list and what is better to have as a category? There is no need for a supercategory for either Superman actors or Batman actors - it is far better to present that information in list form so that more information can be readily available, and so that individual actor articles aren't swamped with potentially dozens of categories relating to individual roles. I suggest you examint the Wikipedia guidelines as to what information is best presented in category form and what is better presnted in list form. Information like what actors have portrayed a particular role is far better suited to list form, since it can be arranged chronologically, or by medium, or by type of portrayal, with extra information about whether the performance has been a one-off or on several occasions, in the UK, US or elsewhere, etc etc etc. with a category you simply get an alphabetical list, which is perhaps better than no information at all, but barely so. This is one situation where lists are far, far more useful than categories. Grutness...wha? 03:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly are we going to put and/or find "these lists?" We could go to the articles relating to the comic book character or whomever in the "In other media..." section, but that's much more broad, since it doesn't simply considered who played what.

Where do you think you'd put them? In one specific category Category:Actors and actresses who have portrayed specific characters, and linked from articles on the particular characters - as is done in other similar situations with other articles throughout Wikipedia. That's the way these things work best. Many many times better than they could ever be done by individual categorisations.

You also have to take under consideration the merchandising standpoint besides to television and film (both live-action and animation) standpoint. Personally, it's faster and more concise to simply look at a catagory of Actors who portrayed Batman (e.g. Adam West, Kevin Conroy, etc.) or James Bond or whomever then to go scroll down a lenghty article about the character(s) themselves. And another thing, I don't think that simply having a list is as easy as it sounds because you also have to go into some detail about when they portrayed the said character and how they portrayed it.

Easier is questionable (I'd have said it was much harder to pinpoint an individual you were searching for that way). And, as I pointed out, you have no additional information in a category. Say you want to find out who played a role immediately after one actor... you couldn't do that with a category without checking every single article. Same if you wanted to know who had played a character on the most occasions, or who played it in one particular production. With a list all that information is readily at hand. In any case, you wouldn't have to scroll down an article about the characters themselves - you'd simply click on a specific heading marked "See also" or "Portrayal in other media", and there would be the link to the list right at the top of the section. As to merchandising, I don't see that has any relevance at all as to having actors listed alphabetically with no additional information rather than listed in some semblance of order by chronology or media type. If anything, having them listed either chronologically or by media type makes a lot more sense from a merchandising poin of view. Grutness...wha? 04:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If a list was ready made in a see also link, then personally, you would have to enter an actor's name in the search engine one-by-one. And if anything, if you clicked on the Actors who portrayed... catagory, there would be a ready made catalog of other actors who have potrayed the same role. That would be a lot more "to the point" than in my imagination, going by rote memory about who played what.

Those arguments make it clear you don't fully understand the difference between a category and a list, since they support a list over a category - they are exactly the reason why a list makes more sense than a category. If a list was linked from "see also", then that list would be stand-alone and would have all the information you could have about a specific performance - information which would not be possible from a category. There would be no need with a list to enter any names whatsoever into a search engine. It would also provide a ready-made catalogue of actors who have portrayed a role, all arranged in a form that would make it very easy to find any information you might need with at most one extra click, unlike a category. With a category, you would need to use rote memory to find out who played that when - that wouldn't be needed with a list.

Consider this: Actors who have played Doctor Who.

In a category, you'd see this:

In a list, you could see this:

Canonical:
  • William Hartnell: (November 23, 1963–October 29, 1966) - BBC TV series
  • Patrick Troughton: (November 5, 1966–June 21, 1969) - BBC TV series
  • Jon Pertwee: (January 3, 1970–June 8, 1974) - BBC TV series
  • Tom Baker: (June 8, 1974–March 21, 1981) - BBC TV series
  • Peter Davison: (March 21, 1981–March 16, 1984) - BBC TV series
  • Colin Baker: (March 16, 1984–December 6, 1986) - BBC TV series
  • Sylvester McCoy: (September 7, 1987–December 6, 1989) - BBC TV series, and May 27, 1996, in the Doctor Who television film)
  • Paul McGann: (May 27, 1996) in the Doctor Who television film.
  • Christopher Eccleston: (March 26–June 18, 2005) - BBC TV series
  • David Tennant: (June 18, 2005–present) - BBC TV series
Non-canonical:

Now, tell me - which provides the more information in ready-to study form? Could you tell from the category alone who portrayed the Doctor in films, or who portrayed the Doctor in 1967? Grutness...wha? 04:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Really, my point-of-view is an interesting tidbit/individual acheivement about the actors/actresses themselves (based on the individual articles) rather than purely the fictional character. It's not any different than say, people who have hosted the Academy Awards or people, who won a Nobel Prize, and who were voted the most valuble player of the Super Bowl. Why does it have to be strictly just one end of the spectrum. If people want a list, then go to the list. But don't erase the "invividual achievement" (i.e. in the catagories section) that's listed in each article.

Well, this really doesn't follow from what you've been talking about before. Items like People who have hosted the Academy Awards are better served as a list, too. The individual achievement, if its worth anything, will be in the article anyway, so it isn't necessary to clutter up the end of the article by repeating it, and it certainly isn't necessary to create what could only ever be a sub-standard duplicate of a list in category form. Have you read that Wikipedia page I pointed you to earlier? Ah, skip that - if you had read it, you wouldn't still be arguing that a category is a good idea. Grutness...wha? 05:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to do things strictly by listifying, then what limits are their going to be? Personally, we might as well not catagorize here on Wikipedia to begin with. For example, we might as well just list people who are from Los Angeles rather than catagorize them

I can't answer that, because I don't want to replace all categories entirely by lists. If you had read that link I pointed out, you'd see that it clearly gives indications of circumstances in which categories are better than lists, and also when lists are better than categories. The actors categories are clearly better as lists by those guidelines. Grutness...wha? 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball on FOX

I laugh because messageboard posts (which post of the "sources" are) are not considered reliable sources. It doesn't matter how many times you link to them, it doesn't make them more reliable. TJ Spyke 05:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, you need to take a class on how to cite things, you don't cite every single thing, just things that could be disputable. There's no reason to make a single citation over if someone was pregnant. Tony fanta 00:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel I must comment on the MLB on Fox article. Your Criticism section is filled with unreliable sourcs and is very poorly done. Its pretty obvious that you personally do not like Fox's baseball coverage because the section reads like a rant. I removed all of the unreliable sources and restored a certain level of neutrality to the article. So I guess I'm going to have to revert to my changes and you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Reliable sources.--BoyoJonesJr 17:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Buddy give it up, I've moved on.--BoyoJonesJr 22:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about the MLB on Fox article anymore, all your garbage criticisms are gone and that's all that matters. Just remember, blogs and message boards are NOT reliable sources. I've never seen anybody get so personally insulted by edits to your contributions, grow up. --BoyoJonesJr 17:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hotelrwanda1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hotelrwanda1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Vin Scully

First, I'm sorry about what you do and do not appreciate, but you need to back down and recognize that you seem to be taking personally that which is not. The image was removed because we cannot argue fair use therefor; there already is an image of Scully and Garagiola—in Scully's article—and anything additional along the same lines violates Wikipedia policy (which recently became even more strict) and, possibly, US fair use laws. As for data which you seem to find common knowledge, it is not, and I was born in southern California at around the same time the Dodgers moved there from Brooklyn. Irrespective of your assumptions, it is imperative that you read WP:V, a policy (which states "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"), and its sister guidelines WP:RS and WP:CITE—any data which may be deemed less than all-encompassing common knowledge must be cited within the confines of an encyclopedia, or it may (by policy) be removed at any time. A great deal of this article is uncited, and I plan more cleanup in the very near future. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Please assume good faith. I'm doing what I feel is in the best interest of Wikipedia. I may be wrong, as always, but it really isn't intended maliciously towards you or anyone. As for your specific complaint: either an image is fair use or it isn't, it has no relation to the amount of images used in a particular article.

I will probably be marking more of your uploads "replaceable fair use". It's not personal to you, I'm just going down the alphabet. Would you prefer I not leave a message on your talk page when I get to one of yours? Let me know.—Chowbok ☠ 16:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Adam West (Family Guy), to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.

[edit] re: Category:Date of birth missing

Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/m/c/User_talk%7ETMC1982_4d47.html"