User talk:ProteinTotal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talk to Me!
[edit] Danny Tanner Edit War
Hello, it appears that you are engaged in an edit war on Danny Tanner with Voretus. Please note that your actions are in violation of 3RR. Please discontinue you actions. Note that a similar warning will be given to Voretus. --Alabama Man 15:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Once he stops, I will. --ProteinTotal 09:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Full House Redirects
The characters cannot pass WP:FICT, the fiction notability guideline, and WP:WAF, the guideline to writing about fiction, so they need to be contained in a larger topic. TTN 23:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I disagree (and so does everyone else). Looks like you have become a master of the unnessicary redirect. --ProteinTotal 23:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- You cannot just disagree with guidelines without reason. Have you even looked over either of those? Would you like me to explain them briefly? TTN 23:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- "And so does everyone else" is rather vague. For one, most people only have a problem with redirecting without discussion. It is a semi-valid viewpoint, but it doesn't really matter. Otherwise, they are people that ignore the above guidelines, which I hope you will not do. It certainly is not vandalism, nor will it ever be vandalism. TTN 23:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- First, do you use your account for nothing but redirects? Second, clearly Danny Tanner is a notable character. He is referenced all the time (Rollin' With Saget for example). Full House is a culturally significant show (since it was one for something like 8 seasons). As a result, it is notable. Now, if Full House was on for only 1 or 2 seasons I would agree with you. However, the amount of years it was produced, as well as its constant syndication warrants keeping separate articles for its characters. --ProteinTotal 23:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I like to spend my time cleaning up fiction. There is a mass amount of trivial articles, so yes, a lot of my time is spent merging and redirecting. This is why I asked if you have read the guidelines. Characters are only assumed notable if they have real world information (in this case, things like development, casting and actor portrayal, and reception) from non-trivial sources. Notability decided upon by users has no baring in article making process. Please at least take a glance at them before responding. TTN 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- "semi-valid viewpoint"? Way to follow your own advice at explaining your reasoning... "Well I guess people could disagree with me, but 'it doesn't really matter' I don't have to explain my self." Going against the wishes of the users is vandalism, and editing with out reaching a consent in a discussion is technically vandalism. --ProteinTotal 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- This site is built upon consensus, among other things, so they have the right to believe that there should always be discussions (This is the valid viewpoint.), but discussions cannot always happen (It becomes semi-valid at this point), so applying WP:BRD is the way to go (which is what I am doing with you right now). TTN 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- As I have stated Danny Tanner is "Major Character" with "real world perspective[s] backed by sources independent of the work." That reason alone should prevent you from redirecting. Second, since a discussion about redirects is in progress, it is inappropriate to just decided that you are correct, and that that everyone else is wrong, and carry out judgement. As a result, further redirects are considered vandalism. There is a reason for the discussion...please use it.--ProteinTotal 23:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Real world information is more than being referenced every once and a while by the actor, though how he makes fun of it could be a start, but he also makes fun of the whole show in general, so it could be placed under that. How does that explain the rest of the characters, though? There is no discussion in progress. Random people comment from time to time, that is all. Random people also agree with me, so it's sort of just "You do what you do and I'll do what I do." So, no it is not vandalism. TTN 23:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting point...you should bring it up in a discussion. From this point on, major characters (Characters included in the shows starting credits) should not be redirected. Instead, please suggest that the article be merged and start a discussion on it. Any attempt at redirecting will be considered vandalism, as you are not it league with common wisdom. --ProteinTotal 23:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Real world information is more than being referenced every once and a while by the actor, though how he makes fun of it could be a start, but he also makes fun of the whole show in general, so it could be placed under that. How does that explain the rest of the characters, though? There is no discussion in progress. Random people comment from time to time, that is all. Random people also agree with me, so it's sort of just "You do what you do and I'll do what I do." So, no it is not vandalism. TTN 23:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- As I have stated Danny Tanner is "Major Character" with "real world perspective[s] backed by sources independent of the work." That reason alone should prevent you from redirecting. Second, since a discussion about redirects is in progress, it is inappropriate to just decided that you are correct, and that that everyone else is wrong, and carry out judgement. As a result, further redirects are considered vandalism. There is a reason for the discussion...please use it.--ProteinTotal 23:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- This site is built upon consensus, among other things, so they have the right to believe that there should always be discussions (This is the valid viewpoint.), but discussions cannot always happen (It becomes semi-valid at this point), so applying WP:BRD is the way to go (which is what I am doing with you right now). TTN 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- "semi-valid viewpoint"? Way to follow your own advice at explaining your reasoning... "Well I guess people could disagree with me, but 'it doesn't really matter' I don't have to explain my self." Going against the wishes of the users is vandalism, and editing with out reaching a consent in a discussion is technically vandalism. --ProteinTotal 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I like to spend my time cleaning up fiction. There is a mass amount of trivial articles, so yes, a lot of my time is spent merging and redirecting. This is why I asked if you have read the guidelines. Characters are only assumed notable if they have real world information (in this case, things like development, casting and actor portrayal, and reception) from non-trivial sources. Notability decided upon by users has no baring in article making process. Please at least take a glance at them before responding. TTN 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- First, do you use your account for nothing but redirects? Second, clearly Danny Tanner is a notable character. He is referenced all the time (Rollin' With Saget for example). Full House is a culturally significant show (since it was one for something like 8 seasons). As a result, it is notable. Now, if Full House was on for only 1 or 2 seasons I would agree with you. However, the amount of years it was produced, as well as its constant syndication warrants keeping separate articles for its characters. --ProteinTotal 23:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- "And so does everyone else" is rather vague. For one, most people only have a problem with redirecting without discussion. It is a semi-valid viewpoint, but it doesn't really matter. Otherwise, they are people that ignore the above guidelines, which I hope you will not do. It certainly is not vandalism, nor will it ever be vandalism. TTN 23:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- You cannot just disagree with guidelines without reason. Have you even looked over either of those? Would you like me to explain them briefly? TTN 23:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the reason for the redirecting without discussion. I go with WP:BRD. When someone reverts for a reason, I discuss with them, like I am with you, to try and sort it out. That way, I save the hassle of waiting around while ten merge discussions just sit there, instead of just discussing three of the ten afterwards. You cannot discuss with only one person, so that is just a much easier way to get down to the point. Also, please read over WP:VAND, as you are not describing vandalism correctly.
Anyways, you believe that Danny is notable enough. What about the others? TTN 23:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- My intepretation of vandalism is correct...continue to do it and there will be consequences. All the characters in the main credits are also valid. Also, you bring up many interesting points; start a discussion with them. --ProteinTotal 23:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Being bold is not vandalizing (a point that is stated). Only if an official, "you will be blocked if you continue to redirect" statement comes will it be vandalism. As you are the only party that has shown any interest in these articles besides anons, I would like to just discuss with you (unless you can point some people out). TTN 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Once again...interesting points. Start a discussion, make your case, then you can edit (once a consensuses is reached). And Remember, no consensuses means vandalism. --ProteinTotal 23:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Are you talking about a different discussion or something? If you aren't willing to actually discuss here, I'm just going to move on to other characters for now. I have no need to fall into an annoying argument that somehow becomes locked. TTN 23:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Once again...interesting points. Start a public discussion, make your case, then you can edit (once a consensuses is reached). And Remember, no consensuses means vandalism. --ProteinTotal 00:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? The redirecting? Yeah, no thanks. Again, I'm going with WP:BRD. If you're talking about the Full House characters, I'll come back later. TTN 00:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Once again...interesting points. Start a public discussion, make your case, then you can edit (once a consensuses is reached). And Remember, no consensuses means vandalism. --ProteinTotal 00:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Once again...interesting points. Start a public discussion, make your case, then you can edit (once a consensuses is reached). And Remember, no consensuses means vandalism. --ProteinTotal 00:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Are you talking about a different discussion or something? If you aren't willing to actually discuss here, I'm just going to move on to other characters for now. I have no need to fall into an annoying argument that somehow becomes locked. TTN 23:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Once again...interesting points. Start a discussion, make your case, then you can edit (once a consensuses is reached). And Remember, no consensuses means vandalism. --ProteinTotal 23:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Being bold is not vandalizing (a point that is stated). Only if an official, "you will be blocked if you continue to redirect" statement comes will it be vandalism. As you are the only party that has shown any interest in these articles besides anons, I would like to just discuss with you (unless you can point some people out). TTN 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of Full House Characters
Why did you just revert the list without anything on the talk page? I wrote an explanation on why the main characters should be included that says nothing about redirecting. I don't know if they should be redirected but that's another discussion that you were already having anyway. Precedent shows that main characters should be in the list of characters even if they have their own articles (I gave multiple examples on the talk page). Anyway, since you insist on reverting it I replied to my talk on that page and said that it should be moved to List of secondary characters in Full House since that is more of an accurate name. If you don't think this should be the case please reply there and give your reasoning, it would also be helpful if you explained why "no main characters" there. Phydend 06:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
