User talk:Maniwar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Current Status:

[edit] Episodes

Feel free to join the discussions on WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE in order to have your opinion heard. Unless you can actually provide sources for single episodes, please do not wikilawyer over consensus to prove your point. TTN (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Maniwar - thank you for informing me about the discussion, and letting me take part. --MacRusgail (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV report of User:TTN

I removed your report of User:TTN from WP:AIV because it is a noticeboard for simple vandalism only. Violations of the three-revert rule can be reported to WP:AN3. You can resubmit your report there if you like. Thanks! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have made four edits in total, but only three of those were reverts. You may want to reflect that in your report. TTN (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your rollback request

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied/January 2008#Maniwar. RFRBot (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violations require four reverts

Before you report people for 3RR, you should know that the fourth revert is the violation, not the third. Your report on TTN shows only two reverts (because the first one you list is not a revert), and the extra one you mention makes three. No violation. Perhaps you could take the article in question, put a copy of it in your userspace, edit it until it meets standards, and then put it back? That way, you would be spending your time making good articles instead of filing incorrect reports.Kww (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Was there something about my answer that upset you?Kww (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User rights

I honestly can't change my position right now. Your reverts in question are much too recent, and that's why I judged the situation based on them. Granted, you have made some good reverts, and no doubt the rollback tool would be of use. But with the questionable activity being so recent, I won't change my position. I'll check up on you in a couple of days, and I'll decide then. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV episode discussion

Thank you so much for letting me know about that. I have really hated that they have been merging/deleting individual episode pages recently. I am for individual episodes, that page is huge, any idea which section I should focus on reading and commenting on first?

Vala M (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vala M, I know it's quite the discussion. I say jump in anywhere. I am keeping track of the coversations myself here [1] as I can track them better. Thanks for pitching in. --Maniwar (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for taking the time to invite people to the episode discussion. From your contributions I can see you've invited a lot of people who've expressed positions on both sides of the discussion. Getting everyone together as you have done is very useful in building a consensus. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you BillPP for the award, I am sooo happy. Yeah, it's taking quite a long time to complete this because so many have been involved. I'm hoping to get something accomplished here. --Maniwar (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

I'd like to invite you to join the new task forces proposed in the Georgia WikiProject. We are currently looking for new members to join our proposed task forces and work groups. With your help we can make it one of the best WikiProjects. Remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Absolon S. Kent (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

I'd like to invite you to join the Christian Music WikiProject. We are currently looking for new members. With your help we can make it one of the best WikiProjects. Remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV episode discussion

Thank you so much for letting me know about that. I have really hated that they have been merging/deleting individual episode pages recently. I am for individual episodes, that page is huge, any idea which section I should focus on reading and commenting on first? Vala M (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Thanks for leaving me that message. Voicing away ;)
~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 00:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply. -- Ned Scott 00:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That is one huge mess of a discussion, and I don't see it being resolved any time soon. There are just too many hard liners to deal with. But I also see at least one participant who is well know to keep arguments going in circles, often to the point of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate his points, to make any discussion utterly futile. Besides, with only two anime series with known sets of episode articles and another with only two more episodes to merge into a list, my work on the issue is nearing completion. --Farix (Talk) 01:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping the community can resolve the issue. If enough cool heads can come, there will be a resolution, however, as things are right now, it is a huge mess which needs cleanup and attention. Keep at it and stay strong. --Maniwar (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I figure I would way in on the one topic that I think is at the core of the dispute, that of collective notability vs. individual notability. I will probably limit my participation to said topic as well as follow one rule, IGNORE PIXELFACE. That is the only way I can see in maintaining a reasonably sane discussion. --Farix (Talk) 03:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Farix. The wider community, as seen at AN/I and AfD, seems to side with TTN, and the fans of any given series do not, and occasionally ally against him. That's what I see happening there. The first few screens are nothing but Anti-TTN vitriol, followed by thinly veiled 'ILIKEIT' in the guise of 'Wikipedia SHOULD become an indiscriminate pile of fact'. Then someone shows all the policies that TTN has on his side, states that TTN is mostly redirecting, and only AfDs when challenged about the redirects and notability, and does have wide community support, if not overwhelming. Then the other side says they should talk more about it, because ...Anti-TTN vitriol, hatred of Jimbo for Wikias, Cabalism. More Policies are cited, and 'my hard work' gets cited. I'll keep defending the common sense that TTN displays, and how easy it is to work with TTN, but not there. I'll get my head ripped off. Especially when I see arguments that three, four, or even five years is just not enough time to get an article any references, and they need more time. It's a frustrating enough thing anyways, but some of the editors there are so deeply emotionally into their series that it's impossible to divorce them of it. I'll try maybe one post, but I don't even know that that's worth it. sorry. And thanks for the notification, I absolutely do recognize the amount of work that tracking so many folks down entailed, and I would rather opt out of ten of these and know about them than miss the one that does occur. my thanks is sincere, it's just.. my doubts are too. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV episode discussion 3

I'm curious to know what criteria you're using to decide who to notify. You apparently are notifying many people, so many in fact, that wouldn't it be better to just include everybody, via a note at a more community-wide noticeboard? seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 00:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm notifying anyone who has been part of the discussion over the past few months, pro or con. However, I am also willing to do a noticeboard, but I don't know how. If you're willing to share, I'm open to doing that as well. --Maniwar (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to which discussions you are using to locate people who have commented. The village pump might be a good place to start, and I see you notified the talk page of WP:NOT, which is good. If there gets some serious steam behind the discussion, and it looks as if we might actually decide something as a community, perhaps a watchlist notice. But that would need an administrator's opinion obviously. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 01:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion (4)

Thanks for leaving me the message. This is a problem that I have been having for ages: people trying to delete epsiode articles for no reason. It really gets on my nerves. Anyways I checked out the discussion and I am kind of confused as to where I'm supposed to write. I would love to voice my opinion (that I'm against the merging) but the discussion is so huge that I'm not sure where to write it. Could you please direct me to the correct subheading e.g. "SH 7" or "arbitrary SH 1". Thanks. Щіκі RoςкЗ^(talκ) 01:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently I'm trying to notify people so I haven't had a chance to go and follow the conversation, but as soon as I do, I will. I would start here [2] to see what has been said and to see what I want to comment on. I realize there may be a lot of comment, but hopefully the community can resolve this issue. --Maniwar (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

People keep deleting the episode articles under WP:FICTION I think. As far as that policy goes, I believe that it would warrant the deletion of such articles. Quite frankly, under the current policy, I do not believe that most episode guides belong on Wikipedia. Only those that have a real life impact should have their own article. The problem is that we have made Wikipedia into an encyclopedia specifically for real world topics and create separate Wikis for other things. Unless we decide to turn Wikipedia into an indiscriminate pile of facts (which I am not against), we can't really keep the most episode articles. However, I propose that we keep episode articles for those series that do not have their own Wikis up and running. We can move it there when it gets started. That seems like a fair compromise.Transcendence (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there is an RFC going on. Morphh ^(talk) 21:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-addition of unverified material to Circuit training

You reverted my removal of unverified material from Circuit training with the edit summary "restoring verifiable data per BOLD." I'm not sure what WP:Bold has to do with the revert, especially since it says "'Being Bold' does not excuse a disregard for verifiability, neutrality, and the other guidelines/policies that comprise the five pillars of Wikipedia." The material wasn't verified by a reliable source, so unless/until it is I'm removing the material again. MrVibrating (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Fact - Curves is the largest fitness franchise in the world and in the history of franchises. Do a quick search and see the irrefutable truth to this (about 10,000 worldwide).
  • Fact - Curves is circuit training
  • Fact - Curves has copycats (meaning they imitate them in their program) that comprise of about 5,000 world wide. They too use circuit training.

Deduction, see the Curves article, also, based off this, one can deduct that Curves is the largest circuit training program in the world. I will be back to work on the article a little bit later this week, but till then, I have a big project that I'm undertaking requiring a lot of my time on wikipedia. thanks for the note...cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I removed the part on Curves that contains the claim about them being the largest because it wasn't directly related to circuit training, and a see-also link was enough. Most of the unverified material was in the paragraph in the intro. Second, we can't have unverified material and tell readers to find the sources themselves. Feel free to add verified information backed up by those sources you talked about. MrVibrating (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newest link in the Centralized Discussion

In Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#Centralized Discussion you just added a link to Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Oh My Goddess_episodes and I'm trying to figure out why. That FLRC has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion regarding episode articles, but with a former featured list that has gone down hill in the two years since it was first promoted. It is already on the Anime project's list to fix to get it back to FL, but until then, we as a project didn't want it having the FL label, as it degrades the much higher quality FL episode lists we already have. It also helped spur discussion in FL on the need to do a review process similar to GA's review, which ensures lists are still good lists 2 years later. Many FLs are being looked at now to see if any need to be delisted. It has nothing to do with the episode deletion/redirect discussions (other than white cat's attempt to be disruptive and make the FLRC more than it is), so I don't see what it has to do with the existing discussion. Collectonian (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That was corrected before your post. I copied the wrong link. --Maniwar (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob (saw the correction after I posted LOL) :) Collectonian (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tv episode

Um... Wha? I don't get it. What does the link you posted on my talk have to do with something I've been involved in?--Marhawkman (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Obviously you have some specific interest in the Curves chain of health clubs, but Wikipedia is not the place for an advertisement for Curves. You reverted edits by two people on an article totally unrelated to Curves, [circuit training], where a section of the article which was little more than an advertisement for Curves was removed. As an active user, I have little interest in policing tin star editors like yourself but in the future consider your own point of view, it's clearly not neutral. The point of Wikipedia is to quickly converge on an accurate reference; revert-happy "editors" who try to maintain adverts do not serve Wikipedia well. --128.232.235.244 (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Saviour-StoryofGod'sPassionforHisPeople.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Saviour-StoryofGod'sPassionforHisPeople.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SafeTV/KWOG

SafeTV became a cable/satellite-only channel in March 2007 when Daystar bought channel 57 in Springdale, Arkansas and converted channel 57 to a Daystar owned-and-operated station. See www.safetv.org/daystar.htm and www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call=KWOG. New World Man (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)