User talk:Frightwolf
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] X-Men: The Last Stand
Thank you for your comments on the talk page regarding the spin about positive reviews for the film. I was feeling besieged by the sorts of people who use insults, accusations and threats instead of reasoned talk. I'm grateful, and I hope you'll enter an opinion at the straw poll on that page. Kind regards -- Tenebrae 21:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
Don't get me wrong, I'm not being bias - I wish I could remove pop-culture on the other SP episodes, but they are just inside of the rules. If you think that your edit was relevant enough, then by all means add it back in, and I'll leave it as such - I'm just doing my best to keep as much OR and the like out :) ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- The main problem I, as well as many other Wikipedians have with it, is that it's not encyclopedic. You have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of random trivia facts. I recently removed all the goofs from every episode, as, although some might find them interesting, they are nonetheless not relevant to an encyclopedia. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More Crap Cultural references
Hi there, thanks for the invite to talk. The thing is the first rule of Wikipedia is Verifiability, which is a hugely important rule, which says that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." So the point of that is that it doesn't matter how "true" something is - or even its level of truthiness :) - the point is, if you can't back it up with a reference and verify it, it can't stay.
So with all due respect, I do see your point - the SOuth Park pages are particularly rife with unsourced O.R., but that doesn't mean we can turn a blind eye to it either. I try my best to remove O.R. when I can, but it can be relentless. In any case, please don't take it personally i always assume good faith. I removed the telephone piece again, but i also removed all the other cultural references that aren't verified - if you
follow the link you'll see that the king of kong and little britain references have been confirmed by the studios themselves in their FAQ. Perhaps if you ask them about the Guiliani thing yourself they'll answer it in the FAQ as awell, and then there'll be every right to re-include it. Please feel free to pop over to my talk page any time if you want to discuss this further. peaceWarchef 07:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] regarding readding comments
Just to explain a little further from my edit summaries [1] [2]: While it is a policy I disagree with, we have a policy which says that users are allowed to remove comments (even legitimate warnings) if they want to, whether they have responded to them or not, and regardless of their reasoning for doing so. There are very few exceptions to this rule. Readding comments, therefore, goes against policy, so regardless of the merits of your comments, and of his comments, it is recommended that you don't re-add it. Does that make sense now? --Dreaded Walrus t c 18:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- It makes sense, but it seems so backwards. If you're going to say, "You've trolled, so I'm removing the comment," you should be able to back yourself up. He hasn't and is either ignorant to "trolling" or is trying to fool people into thinking that it is trolling. And if you look at the Sep 2006 edits, he peeved the creator of "The Invasion" with his rapid-fire deletions, even though he was invited to discuss them. I don't get what is wrong with this individual.
- --Frightwolf 13:59, 4 November 2007
-
- I just thought I'd point out, in case you didn't spot it, I've responded to the message on my talk page, too. See User talk:Dreaded Walrus#Once Again. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
Again as stated by Dreaded Walrus, a source has to specifically support a claim. Links like YouTube and Dailymotion do nothing to support claims such as fans had grown tired of it and saw it as a stale concept. The issue here is NOT whether Steve Austin, "defected" and joined the Alliance is a fact that can be supported by a source. The issue here is whether The storyline is considered a flop is a fact that can be supported by a source. Why? Because that’s what the entire section is about!!! This has to address both sides of the story not just one point of view. Unless these issues are corrected the section cannot be added per WP:OR. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others. You can't use YouTube (and similar sites) as a reference here since they are illegally hosting copyrighted material. They do not have permission to allow WWE video and WWE in the past has made them remove their copyrighted video. TJ Spyke 02:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RE: The Invasion (professional wrestling)
The article is looking much better, and although I think it may be a high-start, it is not quite at B-level yet. Here are some things for you to work on:
- I see a lot of citations at the end of big paragraphs. Are these citing the whole paragraph or just the last sentence? It is better to cite the source after every single source it cites to avoid this confusion.
- With that said, there are still some whole paragraphs without sources.
- Expand the lead. WP:Lead will provide information on how to properly do that. In a nutshell, the lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the article in a couple of short paragraphs.
- Most of the sourcing is good. However, I'm not sure about the reliability of the Smash Wrestling site. Also, don't use Wikipedia as a citation, as you did with the WWF InVasion PPV results. Wikipedia isn't reliable because anybody can edit it. Online World of Wrestling probably has the InVasion results to replace them.
- All of the citations need to be formatted. The {{cite web}} template should be used. It looks like: {{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate= |author= |date= |publisher= |quote= }}.
- It could also use a really good copy edit. I'd love to do it for you, and if you are willing to wait about a week...I will. I have finals coming up, and I should be focusing on that. In fact, I'm avoiding studying right now by typing all this out. :) If you want faster action, post a copy edit request at WPT:PW. There are a bunch of really good copy editors there that will help.
I hope you don't think I'm being hard on you, because the article really has improved a lot. Once all the above is sorted out, drop me a line, and I'll look over it again. Great work! The article isn't far off from B-class. Nikki311 02:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. I'll get to it when I can, and I'll be sure to find some picture for you. I already have a few in mind. Also, I did mean to cite the same source numerous times (after each sentence it cites). There is a way to format the citations when you use them more than once. The first time, write out the whole thing but add a reference name to the beginning: <ref name=example>{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate= |author= |date= |publisher= |quote= }}</ref>. In the subsequent sentences where you also want to use the same citation, all you have to write is <ref name=example/> by adding a "/" and leaving out the actual citation part. One of the articles I've worked extensively on, Amy Dumas, uses this format throughout the article. Skimming the "editing" page might help you with the citation formatting. Good luck with your finals, as well. Nikki311 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
