User talk:Treelo/Archival Quality/2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Clam-Lazlo-Raj.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Clam-Lazlo-Raj.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Clam-Lazlo-Raj.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Clam-Lazlo-Raj.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A Bad Feeling, Need Some Help

I have a Bad Feeling that this Marcus2 will be back to cause Trouble again particularly with me as he was already causing some more in IMDB/Internet Movie Data Base. I hope you can understand not just my problem but probably others that share the same experience like me. My point is, can you get my back if this Marcus2 comes back again? Let me know. Please and Thank You. Night Leon —Preceding comment was added at 06:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, ysee that I'm not even that aware of what goes on in the article. I did suggest some improvements through a peer review suggestion but that was ignored so I figured I'd forget about it. If the person isn't helping with the article or not agreeing on what goes in, you get help. It's not as if I or anyone else should side with anyone, there are no sides beyond that of the rules and guidelines here. For now, I'm siding with what's best for the article, not if someone is disrupting the running of things because they disagree. If a consensus on content was agreed between you and others and it's >2:1 in your favour then consensus prevails and any edits that you feel are justifiably disruptive can be considered vandalism and reverted, along with giving the editor the correct warnings on their talkpage. --treelo talk 11:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NASCAR Fan24's Secret Page!

The Secret Page Detective Award
This user has found NASCAR Fan24's secret page! Congratulations!

NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 19:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy

Only real people not fictional ones can be deleted as non notable with speedy, because fictional ones are generally controversial. Use Afd, and be prepared for an argument. But I suggest to you that it may be better to accept a list of minor characters rather than be faced with people trying to do an article on each of them. Your call. DGG (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Clam-Lazlo-Raj.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Clam-Lazlo-Raj.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How about now?

You remember that argument of ours over the Iggy Arbuckle character list? Maybe not, but I do. You had said that there were a number of problems with it; that it was full of fancruft, and characters who were just "padding". You also said in your hidden message under "Iggy Arbuckle" that if I wanted that section expanded, I should mention what I know of his character traits which matter to more than one episode. Finally, regarding the minors, you said they may be worth noting if I or someone else could state that they've had more than one appearance. Please don't change anything, but why don't you take a look at what's in the page now, and tell me if it's improved any. (If you do, please say your opinions right below this comment; I'll be watching for a response. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to change anything because I did say I didn't want much more to do with it. Anyway, I can only tell you as far as I know which is only upto epidode 13. So you're aware, the qualifier "fictional" isn't needed for describing the series as "animated children's series" pretty much says it's fictional. As for the rest, I see you're still the primary editor but you are doing well so keep it going and see if you can find help from any projects so it'll lessen the amount of edits you're making. Maybe stop the odd numbering of edits too as it looks a bit schizophrenic and could stop others editing in case you end up undoing any of their work. It's probably telling that the talkpage only has your contribs and it's odd as you're not talking to anyone at all.
There's still the problems I mentioned before but I'm certain that it's probably the only way can keep the list looking like it has content. The citations you've got seem to be very defensive and you really shouldn't be that way, if the Polish Wikipedia (which actually shows a lot more restraint and ability to put encyclopaedic info forward concisely) has them it doesn't mean notability is assured. The other image citations you'd be better off editing slightly and uploading here as there's no reason why not I can see but mostly you've gone a good job. Just find some new editors to edit because it's still a solo fan's fondness for something blown too large, what happened to the Wikia wiki you planned to start? Was holding out for some good stuff! --treelo talk 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I realized the wikia would be too hard to maintain. A lot of creators of those sorts of things end up abandoning their own sites. Didn't want to do that to the little thing. And defensive sources? Maybe the reference to the Polish - so that's what that language is! - Wikipedia was a bit defensive, but I don't see how the others were. They would have been considered unverified claims otherwise, and would have probably been removed. And I keep track of the edits, as I explained to User:Geniac, because I consider the character and episode lists to be like children to me, and after User:Foxlad abandoned his child-article (the main page), I basically adopted it. Those numberings are similar to how parents like to measure their children's growth on a routinely basis, or if they seem to have had a growth spurt. It's just a hobby, really (besides helping the articles). I don't actually see why others would be scared away from them because of it; I'm not planning on reverting their edits, unless they're vandalism or original research, or inappropriate appraisal. And there are some other editors; User:Stardust8212 sometimes cleans up the main page, and adds in external info they know of, and an IP address user, 99.244.89.112, has contributed several times in the past week. User:Winterbine has also corrected some typos on the pages.

As for the cited images, I guess I could upload Manly Foreman's image (after cutting his part out), but Kira's image is black-and-white, and I have issues with uploading black and white images of characters from television shows which are done in colour, as I said on the talkpage for the list. If you know of a colour image of Kira, feel free to upload it or tell me about it and I could upload it (it's a free encyclopedia, after all!)

By the way, I have a few questions regarding the hidden messages you had put in before, though most of them are merely conversational: How come you have issues with keeping clothing and facial descriptions of characters if their species is enough to identify them? And isn't it intriguing that the only source which would say anything about Kira said that she's a rat, rather than an oppossum? And you were right about The Great "Bambzeani" being incorrect, it's the Great Bamzeani, though that wasn't really a question. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll offer an explaination, to me if you did a IA Wikia given your dedication it wouldn't die on it's feet and wouldn't be too different from editing here. Give it a shot. As for defensiveness, statements like "Here we confirm her species", "This is how you spell Bamzeani" and "This version of Wikipedia finds these characters notable" sounds like you're trying to prove these things are really what you say they are when you don't need to. I personally do find it offputting to edit the article because you stating how they're your "children" implies that you might not want my input as you own them when, like I said before, you don't.
I can't help you much with it because you have your own agenda and if it's working for you and the others then keep it up, just don't expect things to be the same on less quiet pages should you decide to update something else you can't claim as your children because few others care. The images must be uploaded even if they're black and white just so you can use them in the article than for whatever reason citing where an image is located. As for my comments, clothing for me isn't needed as it doesn't define who they are and putting down "she wears a green top and purple shoes" for instance irritates me because it's so pointless especially if you have an image of them anyway. The only source you got for Kira's species isn't really what I'd term an absolute definition of her species, more a rounded out assumption. It says rat but I don't see a rat when I look at Kira but it's better than guessing at her species. At least I was right on the naming of the Great Bamzeani, got something right.

By the way, could you see the talkpage under This may be perceived as an odd question, but...? Maybe, since no one else has said anything, you could give an answer to the question/s? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave a few but don't consider this me back in with editing. I really can't and would rather you didn't ask me for assistance on the Iggy articles due to that fact. I know you like Iggy but don't overestimate it's popularity because it doesn't feel like it's all that popular even in its native Canada. Don't try and push so hard because I feel like you went all in with Iggy without realising that you do own the articles over-protectively and the info is overkill seeing as so few people even edit it. It's not hated nor is it liked, it just exists as a cheap show for purchase to whoever wants it. --treelo talk 19:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to be back in with editing, anyway. And I don't think it's all that cheap, nor do I think popularity really matters. There's a rumoured second season coming out in April, and I have strong faith that it's popularity will increase dramatically by then, and that enough info - notable as well as fan-beloved - will be given on the characters by then, for the mains and secondaires to have their own articles (or at least share another list.) All I asked you to do was give your theories on those questions of mine, and it looks like you did, therefore I thank you, and wish you good day. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to think it's cheap but it is very cheap to create and buy. Popularity counts for something and without it, you may not see a second season, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be written about but speculating that it's popularity will suddently jump come the second season is your own lookout, just be happy that what you have now is in the backwater because seriously, you don't give a damn about anyone's opinion if it isn't helping you out and would have been warned so many times for article ownership. Should the interest in Iggy peak, prepare for a rude awakening because so far you've had it easy being virtually untouched so far and I'm pretty nice about how I do things, others not so much. I gave you what you want and that which you need but don't recognise it now, hope you know what I say will count for something. --treelo talk 23:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's one problem I've had since we first interacted. I've had a hard time understanding you. From what I can gather, you seem to think popularity does matter for a show, and that clothing and facial descriptions of characters don't always matter, and that I need to stop putting all my faith into something which the possibility of happening is about 50/50. Just to clear my mind, is this all true? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Short version: Yeah, it's true, I did say as much. Nothing wrong with you, just dislike overzealous editors who play by their own rules regarding MOS and article content which you are in some ways.
Long version: Yeah, most of that is true and is like that either because popularity defines notability, not if some fan thinks it is worth expanding to several lists and articles when one article would do. Specifics of clothing and one-time events are redundant and only a very dedicated fan would care about but as Wikipedia isn't a fansite and is for general information, it's too much for so little. And yeah, it is stupid to put all your faith into something that probably has less than even odds at getting a recommission.
That's all true because I'm not lying to you and I explained those things to you. It's true that also I have a hard time understanding you in return and I think it's a shame because you're so dedicated and make a good editor. Thing is that Iggy Arbuckle, though a good show, is barely under the radar and whilst I understand your great interest and endeavours in making the lists and articles as good as they can be, it's still only you and a coulple of others on occasion. Think in terms of scale, Iggy may be big to you but the fact it's only you and the rare other person inputting and I'm assuming reading also should tell you it's nowhere near where you think it is and placing everything on the thinnest chance that somehow a second series will catapult it into popular status is deluded at best.
These articles, they're not yours and that you'd go and say you've "mothered" an article or image totally goes against what Wikipedia is all about, that you own everything and nothing all at once. I doubt I'll change your mind on this and make you recognise that Iggy doesn't need or even warrant any lists and could easily fit into an article like that on the Polish language Wikipedia but there you go. You've become the owner because nobody else would do it, not because you should and turned something which should have been small into something even larger shows don't need.
Went out a bit on what I wanted to say again when "yes" would have done but you know how it is when you need to explain something. I just want you to not think like a fan does but someone who just wants to know what something is about and little else. Fans can sometimes destroy articles even when they think they're being constructive because of all the stuff they put in. --treelo talk 01:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Something interesting I've found.

[1] do thsee user names seem familiar to you, like users we had a hard time dealing with in the past? DietLimeCola (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, some IP addresses also. I know about Komodo lover's odd line of sockpuppetry and recently he's been going on the tack that if he acts like a 9 year old then he might get away with non-communication and therefore can continue on his trolling ways. Keep an eye out as usual, don't really feel like having to deal with him again. --treelo talk 12:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is in the wrong section but...

Could you please give me back all that I have written under the "Critism Of Declining Quality" section of the Powerpuff Girls artical that you deleted? I would appreciate it... I hope it does not sound like a favor I want you to do for me, because it's not. It's a very urgeant requirement.

Do get back soon... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThegreatWakkorati (talk • contribs) 10:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, don't see any reason why I should. I explained why I got rid of it and it's far from an "urgent requirement" so no dice buddy, the opinion piece remains out. --treelo talk 12:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Powerpuff Girls

Treelo, I've heard a little about you from this guy Night Leon, and I need your help. Me and another user have been complaining about the damage Rattis1 has been doing to this article: his insistence that his addition should stay, even though it is controversial. I say that he is stubborn against all reason and common sense, and that he is quite a bit childish. He needs to grow up. So what do you think about resolving this conflict once and for all? I fear he may eventually come back and harass me more. He is making a mountain out of a mole hill, and restoring an argument of long past. Help, please. Marcus2 (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What is it with you guys? You all figure I've chosen a side to stand on when in fact the only "side" I've chosen is that of the readability and quality of the article. To be fair, you and the rest are no better than those you set out to discredit. The very fact you can't even come to a simple consensus on references after so long shows none of you should edit. To me, you should be able to find a middle ground where both sides agree, when trying to reach on consensus sometimes diplomacy and compromise is all you can get without getting this sort of long-running conflict. The article is king here, not your opinion of if these disputed references need to be there or not.
As for the issue on Night Leon and Rattis1, if they're actually being personally insulting then you warn them correctly on their talkpage. Frankly, I don't care what goes on for that section and would actually remove it and prevent it from coming back if it stops this stupid squabble, maybe for those associated with the dispute never to edit the article and move onto other things. You and everyone else needs to compromise on a single idea and leave it at that, no point acting as if it's a case of life or death and the longer you guys keep this crap up, the more damaging it'll be for the article. --treelo talk 15:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Having seen your edits and the links that are in dispute, I'm actually more concerned for the copyvio than the viability of the sources for this info, both of which are reliable (i.e. something that is actually documenting what you're trying to prove, not if their factuality is questionable) sources as far as decade old show sources go with the TimeWarner press release being the more reliable of the sources. Also, I'm so concerned for your vehement displayed on your revert summaries that I'm watching you and will send your butt off to WP:AIV if you talk to anyone else like that again as I don't care what opinion you have, act civilly or I'll come down on you hard. --treelo talk 15:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)