User talk:Chris C. Nichols

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello from Chris C. Nichols! Opinion is the seed, conversation is the flower!

Contents

[edit] Your Say On...The Keeping Up Appearances Plot Synopsis

Will2710Hello there. I've just reverted the edits you made to Keeping Up Appearances, because something like this edit and this edit aren't written very well (i.e. in the formal tone expected of an encyclopaedia article) and, as per the Manual of Style, that's how articles should be written. If you disagree, please respond either here, on my talk page or on the talk page for the article. Thanks!--|Talk! 16:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Further to my last comment, I'm just letting you know that I've reverted your edits again for the same reasons as above. I just want to let you know that some people might consider such edits unhelpful and they may even be considered vandalism. I suggest that, if you want to avoid the possibility of receiving warnings for vandalising, you take a look at the Manual of Style before you make any more edits. You might also like to read about edit summaries as I note you don't always leave them. Please don't take my comments here as an attack on you, I'm just trying to help you out, that's all. If you have any questions, or if there is anything else I can help you with, please ask me, either here or on my talk page. Thanks! Will2710|Talk! 14:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Will2710Like I said, I'm not attacking you, just trying to help you out. If you can't accept that, I'm afraid there's nothing more I can do. You probably have valid edits to make to the article in question; if this is so I encourage you to contribute, just make sure you're following Wikipedia's policies when you do so, which to be honest, at the minute you are not. You should also be aware that there exists such a thing as edit-warring, and when I am editing to make the article lie right with Wikipedia's policies, it's pretty clear who is in the 'right', you might say. Anyhow, like I say, I'm just trying to help, but I can't help you if you don't want my help. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages such as mine by leaving four tildes (Chris C. Nichols 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)). Thank you.

UpDownI know you mean well, but I feel, as others do, that the existing plot section for Keeping Up Appearances is satisfactory and doesn't need changing, especially as the changes are often unencyclopedic and frankly unnecesary. There is also no need to have a first very short paragraph. Instead of having a revert war, could we not focus on improving the List of episodes page instead, as this needs a lot of detail added. --UpDown 10:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Will2710 I agree with UpDown. Whether or not you own all the episodes of the programme is not really relevant. All you are doing is making unnecessary changes which are contrary to Wikipedia's policies. Editors like UpDown and myself consistently try to keep the article written well in keeping with the Manual of Style and so on. While there are people like us around, unencyclopaedic content will be reverted, and it would be really nice if you could just learn to follow the guidelines, because you obviously have worthwhile contributions to make. Edit warring is not the way forward, and in fact, it can get you into trouble. However much you might not think I am trying to help, I am, in fact. Please consider this before responding angrily. Oh, and please, please, sign your posts on talk pages like mine. All it takes is four tildes (Chris C. Nichols 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)). Thank you.--Will2710|Talk! 12:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Will2710 Fair enough. We're not trying to revert back to an error; the reason we keep reverting is because he edits you make are unencyclopaedic, not because they're factually wrong. I'm not disputing that you know your stuff, but you have to keep your edits in line with Wikipedia's policies (i.e. the Manual of Style or we have no choice but to revert them to the last best edit that we can find. Thank you for your understanding - and please sign your posts.--Will2710|Talk! 13:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Say On...Channel five

Victim Of Fate Hi, I just reverted the changes you made on the article for Five (channel). These changes were in the article earlier, and they seem quite POV, and tonally unsuitable for an encyclopaedia article. Also, I think they were responsible for the article being slapped with a cleanup tag. We can discuss it on the talk page if you disagre--Victim Of Fate 13:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Victim Of Fate Hi, you have made more changes to the article that don't comply with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and/or Wikipedia:No_original_research. You also seem to have removed some of my edits from the article. Please can you discuss these changes on the Talk page? Thanks.--Victim Of Fate 08:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Brittas09.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brittas09.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Keepingupappearances 3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Keepingupappearances 3.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Brittasempire 3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Brittasempire 3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 09:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Keeping up appearances pict.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Keeping up appearances pict.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 08:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Brittasempirebird.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brittasempirebird.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Main 3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Main 3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 12:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Onslow12.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Onslow12.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 20:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:20041119.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:20041119.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Series 4.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Series 4.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Men Behaving Badly episodest

Yes you're right, you are not the one who added the copyvio. I purged the article of the copyright violation and removed the warning on your talk. Also, no reason to get so excited, mistakes happen and can and will be corrected. I must have clicked on the wrong revision when I checked the article the first time for the copyvio. Garion96 (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping Up Appearances episodes

Please stop doing these type of edits, there are not suitable for an encyclopedia, only a fansite or TV guide. Also, endings can be given away - again this is an encyclopedia and people should expect endings, a TV guide may not give away endings but thats not what this is. I would also ask you to try and stop making so many minor edits, and try and make one or two bigs one. All your edits are clogging up the edit history. --UpDown 08:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason they are not included in others is no reason to delete it from others, they are extremely relevant to an encyclopedia, please remember this is no TV guide. Also it is far tidier to have episodes in date order, it reads far easier. Please point to policy if it does say different, otherwise I will continue to revert it. If the official policy says you are right, then as much as I disgaree with it, I will accept official policy. --UpDown 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea, but I feel not enough people would vote! But by all means do start a vote. But, I feel without policy to the contrary, it is most logical to have episodes in chronigical order. All things tend to be in date order, and I see no reason why this page should be different. --UpDown 12:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Just for a note, the Dad's Army episode page, which is a Featured list uses my prefered format. --UpDown 12:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
My point though is that it is a Featured list, which means it has gone through anaylis and checking for policy. If a featured list users my way, then I would say that suggests that it is the correct way. --UpDown 12:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm going to revert the table. It worked better with people's comments (like a deletion discission), so we can see reasoning behind their votes. I'm somewhat amazed at your sentence "in contrast only YOU is happy with the current system", that you taking such victory over a lead of one person! If only 3 people vote, the discussion is void anyway. A 3-person vote is hardly democratic. In reference to "Don't you think the specials in chronological order in one table would look so much better?" - no it looks awful. There is nothing connecting these episodes, bar not being part of a series. All episodes lists should be in broadcast order, thats the most logical. It's certainly not "pointless", pointless is having a debate when its common sense to have something in broadcast order. --UpDown 17:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you are just not listening. It is totally logical to have the specials in broadcast order, how is that not logical? Hence why on DVD releases specials are always on the DVD with the series it was after. It is not logical to have any episodes apart just because they are "specials"; they are still episodes aren't they? Most readers will wish to look at a list of episodes in broadcast order (like TV.com, IMDb, all websites - everything uses this system - its simple logic!!). They are not dumped "meaninglessly", please listen, they are placed in broadcast order. And with the table, you should never delete people's opinions, they are they for everyone to read, not just you. And when you "sharpen up" episodes you write like a TV guide, please stop. If you do proper edits, I wouldn't need to revert them. --UpDown 21:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Canvassing

Please do not go and ask people to vote in the way you have, it is forbidden per Wikipedia:Canvassing and is not encouraged. The way you asked is also slightly POV. --UpDown 21:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)