User talk:YetanotherGenisock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Playing around
I really do not understand why you bother to play around with me. If you want all of this content to be fully accepted, feel free to contribute to the discussions going on involving the fiction guidelines. On that note, the only thing actively being changed with FICT is the way that we deal with the content in regards to AfDs, merge discussions, and transwikis. As a whole, it is still stable (also remember that WP:N can be used in its place). TTN (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Um no. You see WP:N requires you actualy merge the martial rather than blunt force redirecting. Since you don't do this it doesn't help your case.YetanotherGenisock (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- If material is relevant, it is merged. If it is redundant plot information and OR, it is impossible to merge it. There is no mandate that things need to be merged; in fact, redirects are encouraged in at least a few policies and guidelines. TTN (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nope try read WP:N The section on merging is short but it directly contractids your claims. Just because you are unable to merge something does not not make it imposible to merge.YetanotherGenisock (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- If material is relevant, it is merged. If it is redundant plot information and OR, it is impossible to merge it. There is no mandate that things need to be merged; in fact, redirects are encouraged in at least a few policies and guidelines. TTN (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Um no. You see WP:N requires you actualy merge the martial rather than blunt force redirecting. Since you don't do this it doesn't help your case.YetanotherGenisock (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you please go discuss somewhere, so you can actually have a relevant point? Trying to keep five to ten articles that clearly fail policies and guidelines from being redirected is about as effective as trying to destroy a brick wall with a spoon. TTN (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- You either don't know much about brick walls or spoons. In any case it would appear that you ignore opposeing opinion so there in no poin in entering into debate with you.YetanotherGenisock (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about you debating with me, which is what you are currently doing, and failing at. I'm talking about you discussing on the talk pages of our policies and guidelines, and getting them changed, so my opinion will be irrelevant. TTN (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- since you don't appear to read the guidelines anyway I don't see that your claim follows.YetanotherGenisock (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- If I am going against a set consensus, then all of my edits be reverted, so there will be nothing to worry about. Regarding your recent comment about WP:WEIGHT, I suggest that you read over that section again. Here is a relevant paragraph:
- since you don't appear to read the guidelines anyway I don't see that your claim follows.YetanotherGenisock (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about you debating with me, which is what you are currently doing, and failing at. I'm talking about you discussing on the talk pages of our policies and guidelines, and getting them changed, so my opinion will be irrelevant. TTN (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- You either don't know much about brick walls or spoons. In any case it would appear that you ignore opposeing opinion so there in no poin in entering into debate with you.YetanotherGenisock (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Note the bold parts. In general, characters of a non-sequential cartoon do not need more than a section in the main article and the plot summaries in the episode list. TTN (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most cartoons tend to ah feature their characters quite highly. Perhaps because the amount of plot you can have around scenery is limited. Thus it would be quite hard to give too much weight to the character aspect of the subject (in this case the cartoon).YetanotherGenisock (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- You don't seem to have a very good grasp of the "depth of coverage" for an encyclopedia, so I won't bother with that any longer. Will you attempt to form a new consensus that allows for these articles to exist, or am I just wasting my time by trying to convince you? TTN (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh dear oh dear. "depth of coverage" now. Come on you must know that wikipedia is not paper. I mean please that line of argument was shot apart back in the schoolwatch days even halfway competent deletionists can do better than that. One general counter would be that wikipedia combines both general and specialist encyclopaedias and a glance at what passes for a specialist encyclopaedia in the relevant areas suggests that wikipedia's coverage is actually pretty lightweight there are others. The sear number of people creating them across a wide range of topics suggest there is a fairly firm consensus that they should exist. A few flying pickets are a nuisance yes but they don't represent any real consensus.YetanotherGenisock (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Citing Not Paper and WP:DEMOCRACY (numbers != consensus) does not help your case at all, and it clearly shows a level of ignorance. Anyways, I'm done with that line of discussion, so can you please answer the previous question? TTN (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I didn't cite WP:DEMOCRACY (I'm pretty sure that there is no WP:1980s british labour disputes shortcut). Not paper more destroys your case rather than actively building mine but I'm given to understand that this can be a legitimate debating tactic. That aside which part of my answer to your question were you unable to comprehend?YetanotherGenisock (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- You stated that because a bunch of people are creating these, that there is obviously a consensus for them, which is not the case. Citing Not Paper to state that there is no limit on an aspect of content, when we clearly have policies and guidelines that limit content is rather pointless, so it does not help you. You cite not paper if someone says that we don't need to cover a cartoon because the Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't cover it, not because someone states that a list of characters can be adequately split between two articles. The question that I'm talking about is "Will you attempt to form a new consensus that allows for these articles to exist, or am I just wasting my time by trying to convince you?" Unless the comment about "flying pickets" was supposed to cover it (which would make no sense, as you seem to like to follow WP:BIO), you never answered it. TTN (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is a consensus that these articles should exist generaly there would be rather fewer of them if there was not. Your argument as to what wikipedia is not paper means was declaired obselete sometime around the time of the school wars. Do you know what flying pickets actualy are?YetanotherGenisock (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- You stated that because a bunch of people are creating these, that there is obviously a consensus for them, which is not the case. Citing Not Paper to state that there is no limit on an aspect of content, when we clearly have policies and guidelines that limit content is rather pointless, so it does not help you. You cite not paper if someone says that we don't need to cover a cartoon because the Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't cover it, not because someone states that a list of characters can be adequately split between two articles. The question that I'm talking about is "Will you attempt to form a new consensus that allows for these articles to exist, or am I just wasting my time by trying to convince you?" Unless the comment about "flying pickets" was supposed to cover it (which would make no sense, as you seem to like to follow WP:BIO), you never answered it. TTN (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I didn't cite WP:DEMOCRACY (I'm pretty sure that there is no WP:1980s british labour disputes shortcut). Not paper more destroys your case rather than actively building mine but I'm given to understand that this can be a legitimate debating tactic. That aside which part of my answer to your question were you unable to comprehend?YetanotherGenisock (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Citing Not Paper and WP:DEMOCRACY (numbers != consensus) does not help your case at all, and it clearly shows a level of ignorance. Anyways, I'm done with that line of discussion, so can you please answer the previous question? TTN (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh dear oh dear. "depth of coverage" now. Come on you must know that wikipedia is not paper. I mean please that line of argument was shot apart back in the schoolwatch days even halfway competent deletionists can do better than that. One general counter would be that wikipedia combines both general and specialist encyclopaedias and a glance at what passes for a specialist encyclopaedia in the relevant areas suggests that wikipedia's coverage is actually pretty lightweight there are others. The sear number of people creating them across a wide range of topics suggest there is a fairly firm consensus that they should exist. A few flying pickets are a nuisance yes but they don't represent any real consensus.YetanotherGenisock (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- You don't seem to have a very good grasp of the "depth of coverage" for an encyclopedia, so I won't bother with that any longer. Will you attempt to form a new consensus that allows for these articles to exist, or am I just wasting my time by trying to convince you? TTN (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most cartoons tend to ah feature their characters quite highly. Perhaps because the amount of plot you can have around scenery is limited. Thus it would be quite hard to give too much weight to the character aspect of the subject (in this case the cartoon).YetanotherGenisock (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note the bold parts. In general, characters of a non-sequential cartoon do not need more than a section in the main article and the plot summaries in the episode list. TTN (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] re category deletion
I agree with his decision and that the redirects should be kept. I feel no need to restore the category, since it will be deleted again. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was not a dispute, nor were their any pages in the category when I deleted it. I feel no need to revert my deletion at all. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- As a member of the appropriate wikiproject, i supported his decision, and deleted the category once it became obsolete. I will not restore and and believe his decision was right in this case. The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reverts to avatar episodes
CAn you please stop reverting them back to articles from redirects? We were already planning to merge them into season articles and by having them made into redirects, people will be more likly to work on them. If you put the summaries back, then people will not see the need to work on the season articles and nothing will ge done. The Placebo Effect (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- THe thing is, when they are there, the inforamtion is there and, rather then work on the season articles, peoplew ill wwork on the episode articles because the believe that they are allowed. I am not the only one who wants them merged, but with the episode articles being remade, it makes it harder to right the season episodes and gives the false assumption consensus approves this. 01:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- BEcasue when they exsist, people assume that we can have the articles and no work goes into working on the season episodes. Since these became redirects more people have started focusing there efforts into writing the season articles. And there is currently no link to the season episodes in the main space yet. The are being worked on in project space. The Placebo Effect (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Non-project Memnbers want to keep the Status quo, look at the talk page of where they are redirected to. THey like it better with the play by play summaries that are laughing at every rule guideline and policy we have. The Placebo Effect (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- BEcasue when they exsist, people assume that we can have the articles and no work goes into working on the season episodes. Since these became redirects more people have started focusing there efforts into writing the season articles. And there is currently no link to the season episodes in the main space yet. The are being worked on in project space. The Placebo Effect (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] You have been blocked
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.
For more info see here --The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
