User talk:Harlequin212121

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome from PS2pcGAMER

Hello Harlequin212121 and welcome to Wikipedia!

After seeing one of your contributions, I just thought I'd stop by and say hello. There can be a lot to Wikipedia, so I thought I'd let you know of some important links, such as:

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or you can just ask me on my talk page Alternatively, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Again, welcome and if there is anything at all I can do for you, just leave me a message. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WRT The West Wing

The West Wing article has gone through the peer review and featured article candidacy and succeeded. These see alsos were added during this period. There was no objection or mass outcry against them. See also is for related topics that may not fit into the text. I would not feel comfortable mentioning either of these shows in the text, but they are related to the topic at hand. Commander is relevant because almost every review of it compared it to The West Wing and many of its themes and episode plotlines have been similar to The West Wing if not complete copies. Yes, Minister is a humorous take on the same idea as The West Wing. This is not a show that I have seen, but I understand that the show bears similarities to The West Wing, except that it is humourous and focuses on the British government. I am having a bit of trouble understanding what your problem with the articles is. Please let me know. Thanks. — Scm83x talk 14:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Jackjenn17.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jackjenn17.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Meganjackjennwed.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Meganjackjennwed.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -Shannernanner 15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Shannernanner 22:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that I am not doing so, nor do I think you get to be the one lone voice of that accusation. Perhaps you'd like to respond to the various points I made in my rebuttal to you in the talk section of Boy Meets World? --Harlequin212121 06:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

-Shannernanner 07:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very impressed with your prestigious little warning icon and everything, but this is getting out of hand. I have repeatedly asked you to explain yourself as to why this isn't NPOV and you seem to offer no other explanation but "Stop violating NPOV" and reverting changes. I don't agree with your changes and I also don't think you should be the sole dictator as to my edits being non-neutral, when I say this... you offer no response. When I make plenty of points in refutation in the talk section of Boy Meets World... you offer no response. So, instead of keeping this ridiculous thing going how about you just try to explain yourself? Why is this so difficult? I'm sorry but your thoughts and analyses of how a Boy Meets World page should look are not necessarilly more valid than mine, so explain yourself or I will take further action in trying to get this dispute dealt with in a different manner than you getting high and mighty and acting as if my view is irrelevant--Harlequin212121 14:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I have explained that your edits violate Wikipedia:NPOV guidelines. I have also explained why. I don't desire to argue with you about it. You are reverting other people's helpful edits to insert your commentary, which constitutes original research. Please stop. -Shannernanner 09:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I have requested a mediation, I believe your refusal to discuss or hear any opinion other than yours on this matter has gotten out of hand. --Harlequin212121 16:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I explained the reasons your edits were out of place on the Boy Meets World talk page. In a series of edits, you reverted the article just to re-insert your commentary, reverting others' helpful edits. According to Wikipedia policy, you may not insert original research or your own point of view, even if it seems obvious to you. All information must be verifiable. -Shannernanner 06:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
And I responded on the Wikipedia talk page and you didn't feel the need to respond to this despite ample points I made, you just continued your incessant reverting. Again, you are not qualified to be the sole decider as to whether or not something's in violation of NPOV, the bottom line is I don't trust your judgment and think you have developed a vendetta against that edit. In looking on your discussion page it appears this isn't the first time you've been accused of such an action. The mediation's been requested, if it turns out I'm wrong then I'll drop it, but I truly don't believe I am, and I don't take your judgment soley as valid proof. Since you seem unwilling to further discuss this on the Boy Meets World talk page, Maybe you can tell me the non-NPOV violation of me moving Angela, Jack and Rachel ahead of Mr. Turner and Mr. Williams? Angela, Jack and Rachel were on the show longer and appeared more frequently when they did than the two of them, and since the character order seems to be in the order of the import of the character. Why shouldn't this change be made? Perhaps you can also tell me the NPOV violation concerning me adding Alan's coddling of Eric resulting in Eric's immaturity and doing nothing with his intellect. This was actually the plotline of a couple episodes, this violates NPOV too? The fact of the matter is you didn't even address any of these issues when you made the hasty reversions of my edits, because there is no logical response. You addressed a few things which you took as non-NPOV (and I disagree with) and yet reverted everything. I eagerly await your reply and hope you don't choose to ignore these points as you did on the Boy Meets World talk page.--Harlequin212121 07:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not ignore it. I had already stated why your edits violated policy. The characters are currently not in order of importance (which is POV), but in credits order. The characters which did not stay for the full run should probably be in chronological order; Minkus was the last to be added, and therefore is now at the bottom. There is not an episode which says directly "Alan's coddling Eric resulted in Eric's immaturity," nor does saying "and this is correct" constitute NPOV. I do not have a "vendetta" against your edits, they just do not belong on the article. If you would like to contribute any verifiable information, it is welcome. -Shannernanner 09:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no, the characters aren't in credits order, otherwise William Russ/Alan Matthews would be last, wouldn't he? And Betsy Randle/Amy Matthews would be ahead of Eric. And Danielle Fishel didn't join the main cast until season 2, so she should be after Minkus by your logic. Also, Morgan wasn't around for the full run of the series since she was switched and thus she should moved around too. Except the order is fine the way I have it because chronological order was just something you up and decided now once you realized you didn't have a leg to stand on with regards to Turner and Eli. This is especially obvious considering the fact that the new chronological order thing is only something you did today and thus didn't exist when you first reverted my edits. And, yeah, there is an episode of Boy Meets World that pretty much directly states it, it's called "Security Guy", I suggest you watch it. The wording is my own because this is supposed to be original writing, but that's almost exactly what was said. I've had enough of this, you are not the sole editor of the Boy Meets World page as much as you appear to want to be. Start discussing things in talk, and start getting it through your head that your voice isn't the only one that matters. --Harlequin212121 16:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Not solely my opinion. -Shannernanner 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
And if you'd read on it looks like I'm not alone either. By the way, never threaten me with banning again. You're not an administrator. --Harlequin212121 19:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a template warning message for edits that do violate Wiki policy. Shannernanner didn't threaten you with anything. - Debuskjt 15:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Claiming I've recieved my "last warning" when he has no authority to ensure that this is my last warning and claiming in no uncertain terms that I WILL be banned from Wikipedia, sounds pretty threatening to me and in that he has no right to do this, I think my reaction is justified. --Harlequin212121 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Shannernanner and you are both after the same thing -- to make a good and better article at Boy Meets World. I think it might not be a bad idea for you both to take a deep breath, remember to be civil, and to assume that both of you are acting in good faith for that common goal. You two might disagree, but fundementally you are on the same side. I hope that I've laid some groundwork where you two can start to work together on this and come to an acceptable compromise. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing speedy tag on a nonsense article

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Joey Epstein, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --ArmadilloFromHell 07:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I intended to edit the page and clean it up somewhat, you just hadn't given me the chance yet... --Harlequin212121 07:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 08:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/r/User_talk%7EHarlequin212121_1b54.html"