User talk:Kevinbrogers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Oh, and another thing....

I would suggest supporting keeping the article for Mr. Monk Gets Hypnotized up. Maybe find an image. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Mr. Monk and the Astronaut"

I haven't seen anyone else speaking up about the article's inclusion on the AFD page. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You might want to make a request for undeletion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

Unfortunately, undeletion requests aren't allowed to challenge previous deletion discussions; they can only be used in cases of accidents (as I understand it). If the article can be rewritten to be more notable, it'll probably stay online, though. Kevinbrogers (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it has been done. [www.tv.com] has additional production information.

Monk

"Why so angry? WP:ILIKEIT is true, but if notability can be established, it should be kept. That was my reasoning on voting "Keep" for that article. Someone should add sections to Mr. Monk Goes to the Dentist on Production and Reception, and everything should be fine." And what do you suggest they use as sources? The sources aren't just gonna appear out of thin air. You can't build a "reception and production" section by just pulling it out of your ass. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• If sources can't be found, or if the sections aren't built, go ahead and go on a deletion rampage. I wouldn't support it and would probably oppose and reject your deletions and get you blocked. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Buzzmcnabpsych.jpg

I have tagged this file for deletion, because it is possible to obtain a photo of this gent. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MonkAstronaut.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MonkAstronaut.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Buzzmcnabpsych.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Buzzmcnabpsych.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jack Merridew 07:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Monk episodes

I noticed that you hadn't been active on writing episode summaries, and as you may have noticed, I filled out at least two of them. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bolded episode numbers

[1] The unbolding was more likely in the range of my thirty-thousandth edit. There is no exception defined in MOS:BOLD for bolding the currently aired number of episodes of a series. Much more importantly, what is the supposed rationale for bolding it, i.e. for this departure from standard text format? I know that even quoting MOS:BOLD to certain people usually leads to those people indolently adjusting the MoS to their wants, so I'll probably regret even seeking this dialogue. On the off-chance that you are at all willing to engage in sensible discussion, please tell me at least what the rationale for bolding the current number of episodes is. If any valid rationale can be formulated, we could easily settle on boldly adding or at least proposing an exception at MOS:BOLD. But try as I might, I cannot discern any valid reason to justify this extraordinary formatting. --78.35.223.72 (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

[copied from User talk:78.35.223.72, let's keep the discussion confined to one place.] Unless you are an editor who hasn't logged in, this does not equal 30000. I have no evidence anywhere to suggest that you are any more than an IP editor. Anyway, I didn't even know of the existence of MOS:BOLD, and I frankly don't even know where to find all these rules or even that most of them exist. I'm basing it on precedent, going off of List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes, List of Parks and Recreation episodes, and several others. Whether you are an IP editor or a much more experienced editor, you're right about the bolding rule. I'll leave it the way it is. Please let me also direct your attention to WP:AGF. I had no idea that the bolding rule existed, so there's no reason to attack me for it. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't mistake my rightfully and (I believe) understandably being mildly pissed off with "attacking you". Seriously, citing AGF at me? That's grand, coming from someone who speaks as condescendingly of IP editors as you do, as though somehow I have to prove myself to you any more than vice versa. Do you honestly believe that that "Yeoman editor badge" gives you any seniority over anyone else on this website? History should teach us (yeah, I was around for that) that any sort of credit claimed in a pseudonymous environment should be taken with more than a grain of salt, and sheer number of edits is next to entirely meaningless in an environment that is supposed to be based on consensus and reasoning. So what if someone actually made their very first edit? If that person provides a valid reasoning, are you going to dismiss it or even just treat it with any amount of reservation based on who said it?

Also, I did not attack you in any way. When I said that I might regret this (which is the only part of my comment that might remotely be construed as being less than perfectly polite), I was speaking from years of experience with people --many of whom have shiny Yeoman badges on their user pages-- who auto-revert IPs just for the heck of it without ever bothering to look at the edit or the policy/guidelines behind it, just assuming that IP equals newby, idiot or vandal. Well, let me tell you that as far as I know all of the worst malactors here are very well-established editors. Ironically, this is exactly how they get to be as harmful as they are, because guys like you who don't think twice about bashing on IP editors would never dare speak up to those people.

Lastly, regarding Whether you are an IP editor or a much more experienced editor: You are assuming a contradiction where there is none. I happen to have a dynamic IP, but there are quite a few long-term IP editors (e.g. 66.127.52.47) who refuse to be a part of the "community" for various entirely legitimate reasons. Luckily for both of us, I don't indulge in age-ism, otherwise I'd have to assume that someone half my age likely isn't mature enough to use the correct categories when assessing their fellow editors. Having said that, thank you for making an effort, that alone makes you the exception rather than the rule. --78.35.223.72 (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why you were so mad about me reverting your edit one time, especially when it was something as simple as something being bolded that has been there for years. If it was you who posted at User talk:SchrutedIt08, I'm not sure that you have any room to accuse people of speaking condescendingly to each other. As far as I can tell, his/her edit was the first time anything had been unbolded. I could be wrong. And as far as speaking up to people, I challenge way more established editors all the time. I do think twice about "bashing" IP editors, and only get frustrated when they are persistent vandals, people with extraordinarily bad grammar, or people who appear to be screaming at people for unbolding something on their (what appears to be) second edit. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Kevinbrogers. You have new messages at Drmargi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.