User talk:Wack'd/Archive 3
 Archives |
|---|
Hi! I have now archived a second time. If you think I have let this page run to long without archiving, please tell me. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 02:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
About that Voice Actor Error in Craig's Infobox...
editThat was me. I didn't look at the paragraphs while I was creating that template, and I had forgotten that Trey Parker is the one who voices Craig. I guess I should have been looking that over. Sorry! Wilhelmina Will 05:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Taxi info incorrect . . .
edit- See this new entry in the Taxi talk page --- the info you provided earlier was incorrect, I'm sorry to say.--Bamadude 17:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The point of my arguement was NOT the difference between airdate and episode # order - it, actually, was much more simple than that. I was simply stating that the episodes were in order of airdate on the DVD box (the episodes were actually listed WITH the airdates), and that the DVDs (being an offical source) would be more reliable when building the episode list than an unoffical source like IMDb (the users actually admit to the frequent flaws in their information). It had nothing whatsoever to do with the difference between airdate order and episode # order (in this case, actually, there is no difference between the two, and whoever added the airdates obviously used an incorrect source.) Thank-you very-much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- You have now lied at least 4 times and these links below prove it:
- LIE #1 - Look at this comparison on the page history: [1]. You not only changed the correct order of the episode list that I fixed earlier (my correct edit on the left side), you also changed the airdates, purposely editing the episode list and the airdates incorrectly as shown in your bold red edits (your incorrect edits on the right side).
- LIE #2 - Your source was quoted as "the back of the DVD cover" in the reason for your reverting back to your incorrect edit on the history page on 15 SEP 2007 at 16:11 --- scan down to that date/time on that page, edit id #158126113. That statement would mean that you either owned the DVD cover or had actually seen it, but if you really had, you would have known you were wrong, which is Lie #1. The page history doesn't lie as it's in your own words --- it clearly shows that you lied then about seeing the DVD cover and are lying now to cover it up, which is your statement above --- Lie #2.
- LIE #3 - This edit made on 30 AUG 2007 at 16:19 shows that you initially created the episode list, and did so incorrectly at that and the history page from then until now shows you defended it up until today.
- LIE #4 - Don't need a link here as logic proves you wrong --- the airdates were added by another user and they were correct --- it was your episode list that was incorrect, being out-of-order. The adding of the airdates by that user was what drew attention to this whole thing.
- Didn't the Martha Stewart case teach you anything? If you make a mistake, don't cover it up by lying and then don't cover up old lies with new ones --- oh what a tangled web we weave. There's also no middle "e" in argument.--Bamadude 19:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have one correction to my argument that I just discovered was incorrect, but it's a minor one at this point. I had just intended to add the IMDB episode list as a 2nd source, as I initially used the IMDB list as my source for my 1st edit of the episode list, but I just found out that it's incorrect also. However, I was not aware that it was because I didn't own the DVD at that time and I did defer to Wack'd and his alleged proper sourcing of the DVD cover at that time as being a more-official source per my previous remarks below. But I bought the DVD myself yesterday and I verified the proper order from the DVD and posted it in the article along with scans of the DVD covers as visual proof as the source, so I stand corrected only in that respect and had no knowledge the IMDB list was incorrect until just now, but it doesn't affect my argument as the IMDB list doesn't matter anyway --- the DVD is the official source as we have both agreed upon earlier.--Bamadude 19:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Latest Taxi issue
editWe agreed on the episode order. We ended the edit war between us. I told the truth 100% of the time...but you keep insisting that I did something wrong, and you were just the victim. This is childish. Not only do you claim I made points that (according to the current Taxi talk page AND the page history) I never made. If we agree on the order, fine! Issue resolved! There is no need to keep arguing. But you insist on not only making this into a bigger deal than it already was, (making a mountain out of an anthill, not even a molehill) or but throwing around acusations at mostly random people. If your edits were reverted, it is either because you are wrong or a simple mistake, NOT a personal issue or insisting apon an edit war (WP:AGF). Please, the episode list is the way we both agreed on, regardless of how we each came to this conclusion. LEAVE IT BE!
- The latest issue has nothing to do the episode order, which was set and agreed upon as of my last visit to the page yesterday; the problem is the way you and your friends are handling it. I called you on the carpet for your blantant screwups and coverups which you fail to admit and apologize for, and I believe you enlisted your friends Croctotheface & Clarityfiend (I will assume these are all separate entities and not sockpuppets) to "tweak my nose" by using WP:MOS to revert minor edits I made. I believe they are your friends because they are obviuosly reporting interaction between me and them to you. They circumvent the rules by ganging up to revert my edits instead of discussing the issues like you and did. In my opinion, you 3 lack a desire to do the right thing and act fairly and honest in your edits and your dealings with other users. You have not once admitted that you made a number of errors in your edits and statements. I have admitted that I unknowingly made edits which were contrary to WP:MOS and didn't contest them or try to hide my complicity as I was wrong. You 3 should take a cue from that and admit your faults and use the site fairly without trickery and ganging up on users; it's wrong and very childish and you owe the editors of the article & myself an apology & an admission of your errors.--Bamadude 17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe a word of your responses and I've already proven my allegations.--Bamadude 21:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Where to report this
editThis looks pretty serious. There's something going on with assuming good faith and incivility here. One pair of tired administrative eyes can't unravel it in five minutes. What you should do is write up a roughly chronological account of what happened, with difflinks, for WP:AN/I. Daniel Case 02:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems an AN/I was started a while back, but dropped by both parties as an isolated incident. At the time. It looks as if the issues are returning.
You seem to want your talk page protected ... I'm not sure yet it's reached that point. If you really think you need it, go to requests for protection. Daniel Case 03:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I apologize
editI would like to apologize to you if I said or did anything that offended you as I only meant to improve the Taxi article. I don't agree with your style or your version of the circumstances surrounding the edit war, but you will be who you want to be and I'm sorry regardless that your feelings were hurt over it. Since all the major edits and discussions have been agreed upon as of today, I have archived the Talk page so the possibly-offensive remarks are removed from plain view. I propose that any major changes or any future conflicts are discussed first before an edit war gets started so we can reach a consensus to avoid these messes in the future.--Bamadude 01:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Unruly fare
editYou're right. Such a seemingly uncontroversial subject, but of course nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Clarityfiend 17:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Imaginationland Merge
editUser:Sceptre has started to unilaterally merge the episodes together, not waiting until the poll has closed. As there is a 3:1 opinion out there that this should not occur and I do not wish to break the 3R rule I was wondering if you could help me with reverting his edits? Thanks. -- UKPhoenix79 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Nickelodeon Newsletter — October 21, 2007
edit| The Nickelodeon WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 1 • October 21, 2007 | ||||||
| ||||||
AfD nomination of List of Kids Next Door operatives
editI have nominated List of Kids Next Door operatives, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kids Next Door operatives. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. treelo talk 23:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Wack'd! Since you've assessed quite a few good articles and contributed to them, I thought I could solicit your assistance. I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might be of some help in critiquing them:
- Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
- Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Any helpful comments will certainly be appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.
If you have the time, it'd be great if you could review those articles and assess their strengths and weaknesses. Thanks, and a Happy New Year to you! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Nickelodeon Newsletter — February 2008
edit| The Nickelodeon WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 2 • February 2008 | ||||||
| ||||||
Happy Valentine's Day!
edit
A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Island (novel series)
editI see you have a history of working on the article Island (novel series). I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Mel Brooks infobox
editWhile he isn't actively working on the new Get Smart film, he, nonetheless, gets a credit for it, having created the characters. I don't think it's out of place in the "Productions" section of the template. Furthermore, three people have added it, and you're the only one removing it. It would seem like more people advocate its inclusion than its omission. — MusicMaker5376 23:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello (iCarly)
editHi, I am Andrewrox :) i was wondering if you were going to continue to make the iCarly episode plots, becuase I have brought them back to life and you can now create them. So can you please continue to make them???? --Andrewrox (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well thanks for agreeing to continue to create the iCarly articles. But isn't the size issue thing over, plus if they revert it then I will just keep reverting it back. They have gotta get less pedantic :) and if you are worried about them getting delted, please put them on my talk page and I will save them to a word document. Also, are you from the US? becuase then you would have seen all episodes? I am from the "land Down under" (australia) so we are only up to "iWanna Stay With Spencer" which premiers tomorrow. Thanks soo much :) --Andrewrox (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Nickelodeon Newsletter - September 2008
edit
|
Nicktropolis a GA candidate The article Nicktropolis is currently a GA candidate. It was nominated on August 14, 2008, and, as of press, is still pending a review. You can review the article, just be neutral when you do. Here's the important links: |
New look You may have noticed some changes around the home page (and the newsletter). WP:NICK is getting a face lift, and so are most aspects of it. Jonathan and Macy are working on this so far, but we'd love your help! If our code has an issue, or you think a new bit of code will make it look better, feel free to work with it! |
Collaboration of the Month Our next collaboration depends on the pending GA review of Nicktropolis.
|
|
Archives We made a new page just so we can archive these newsletters. Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Nickelodeon/Newsletter. I felt that was a bit lengthy, so I made a shortcut just for it. It's WP:NICK/NEWS. I created that so, if our delivery boy fails, you can still access the newsletter. |
Editor's note on the hiatus The newsletter went on hiatus for around 3 months because I took a wikibreak to get away from all the drama on Wikipedia. Let me tell you, though: I'm back, and I feel better than ever. So don't expect me to put the newsletter on hiatus for a long while. |
Kudos
CfD nomination of Category:Pearls Before Swine (comic strip)
editI have nominated Category:Pearls Before Swine (comic strip) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Pearls Before Swine (comic strip)
editI have nominated Category:Pearls Before Swine (comic strip) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
|
New homepage! We've redesigned the home page for (hopefully) the last time for a while. If you don't like the new design, the old page is archived here. To match the new design, the newsletter's format has also been redesigned. I hope you like it!
As the member list seems to have gone basically stale, I have removed all members from the list and moved the member list to a page that is transcluded onto the home page. Please DO NOT add your name to the homepage! Thanks! |
Sorry this issue is a bit late... Personal obligations have overtaken my Wikipedia time, and I haven't exactly had time to send out this issue. November's issue is coming soon. I promise. :-)
Every month, I choose an article that I think needs help, or is just plain interesting. This month's article is Nickelodeon Magazine. Nickelodeon Magazine's article needs help. There are no sources. I know, for this page, it's practically impossible to get it to a FA, but let's imagine we're trying to get it to FA status. That will be a motive for us to add sources, improve the writing, etc. Let's work on this article for the wellness of it! </pep talk>
|
|
Deletion of Hey Arnold characters
editAn article you have created may be deleted. Take a look: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Sawyer Hellerick (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Rob Hummel
edit
I have nominated Rob Hummel, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Hummel. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair-use
editRe this edit: the image is a fair use image, so if you put it in a new article you need to provide a fair-use rationale on the image page. If you don't know how to do so I can help you, but please add the rationale quickly. Thank you, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- You can paste this template into the file description page:
{{Non-free use rationale
| Description =
| Source =
| Article =
| Portion =
| Low_resolution =
| Purpose =
| Replaceability =
| other_information =
}}
- Fill in all the blanks; you can look at some other images, like File:Bigissue.jpg, for an example of how to fill them in. There is template documentation at Template:Non-free use rationale. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind, I have done it for you. In the future, though, please don't leave problems sitting around unaddressed like this; add the fair-use rationale before, or at the same time as, you add the image itself. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Captain Underpants
editI have nominated Category:Captain Underpants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Deevol1b.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Deevol1b.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).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
