User talk:TTN/Archive 15: Difference between revisions
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
::::The entire reason I have to do things like this is because of people like you. You don't care about quality articles or proper information management. You obviously know the difficulty of trying to start discussions for articles only looked at by anons, yet you still state that a discussion should have taken place. The only thing you care about is pure numbers and for some reason you actually care about edit history. I really suggest that you stop worrying about minor fiction articles, and start using the time you would gain to really do something good, like bringing something to FA status. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN#top|talk]]) 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
::::The entire reason I have to do things like this is because of people like you. You don't care about quality articles or proper information management. You obviously know the difficulty of trying to start discussions for articles only looked at by anons, yet you still state that a discussion should have taken place. The only thing you care about is pure numbers and for some reason you actually care about edit history. I really suggest that you stop worrying about minor fiction articles, and start using the time you would gain to really do something good, like bringing something to FA status. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN#top|talk]]) 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::[[Wikipedia:Editors matter]]. Those anons frequently lay the foundations of articles and eventually become established eidtors. We do not cultivate their time and efforts by dismissing them as somehow inferior to us or disregarding their opinions altogether. I care about edit history, because authors and contributors who are not paid for their work should at least have their contributions remain public and also because edit histories are useful when considering RfAs as only admins can see deleted contributions. As far as telling me to not worry about fiction articles and work on bringing something to FA status, if you would like to do just that, I would gladly help. Why not lead by example and show us how to bring some of these to the next level? Best, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 17:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
:::::[[Wikipedia:Editors matter]]. Those anons frequently lay the foundations of articles and eventually become established eidtors. We do not cultivate their time and efforts by dismissing them as somehow inferior to us or disregarding their opinions altogether. I care about edit history, because authors and contributors who are not paid for their work should at least have their contributions remain public and also because edit histories are useful when considering RfAs as only admins can see deleted contributions. As far as telling me to not worry about fiction articles and work on bringing something to FA status, if you would like to do just that, I would gladly help. Why not lead by example and show us how to bring some of these to the next level? Best, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 17:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::::Honestly, only like twenty-five percent of actually editors matter, and an even lower percent of anons matter. If the articles that they've worked on do not contribute anything to the site, their edit histories do not matter either. I doubt an RfA will come down to a few edits on some minor character, so that doesn't matter either. What I do is actually beneficial to the site. I merge and redirect articles until they are in a state where they can actually be edited, and often trim them to make sure that they do not go back to the way they were. You attempt to save such articles no matter what, and then you never even touch them again. I don't know about your activities outside of filibustering AfDs for fictional topics, but I'm sure they are probably actually useful. If you were to take the wasted time, and mix it with those activities, you would be far more productive. As for myself, I don't have the attention span to productively work on building articles. I can spend an hour chopping down a character list, but I get bored after five minutes while looking for sources. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN#top|talk]]) 17:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:45, 1 August 2009
 | Please keep all discussions on their original talk page. If I start a discussion on your talk page, please respond there, and if you start one here, I will respond here. |
Welcome back to Wikipedia from Jack Merridew
Hi, TTN. I welcome you back to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! If you need help, ask me on my talk page Jack Merridew 13:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
↑ waz lulz. Good to see you return. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Merges
Just to keep it short:
It is very likely anything you merge - warranted or not - related to works of fiction is going to run into controversy given your history with merges on television shows and characters.
I, or other editors, may agree with a few, some, most, or all of the merges you are pointing to, but all thins considered, go through the red tape. And that includes getting the links right on the merge templates. They should point to the section you set up, not just the talk page.
- J Greb (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, just a word of caution that we have not fully resolved all issues on fiction (and may never do so - the likely result being that an essay will guide fiction beyond the GNG, but this isn't set in stone). It's a very tense stalemate, and while merge discussions are fine, I'd make sure you've got good reason to do so, lest the situation becomes unbalanced. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed the speedy deletion (repost) tag from this article and brought it to AfD for discussion. Please contribute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Dauterive (2nd nomination). Thanks, ... discospinster talk 23:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Noticed you merged this. Was there a discussion about it first? It's not that I'm objecting to the merge (I probably would have agreed with your proposal if I wasn't retired), just as a matter of course. JuJube (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- No discussion as of yet. The articles are dead, so going ahead with it unless someone objects (which they shouldn't unless they honestly think that the articles are good as they stand) seems like the best course. TTN (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I worked hard on the articles, and it's a shame they're dead and all, but it's not a big deal to me. Heck, at this point I wouldn't mind if Zatch Bell and Kiyo Takamine was merged; too much stupid shit gets thrown in there, and the way I am now, once it goes off my first "My contributions" page, I won't bother checking it anymore. JuJube (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, could you hold the merge of Megumi and Kiyo for a bit? I'll be reffing them some time this weak and have begun cleaning up the Kiyo and Zatch article. DragonZero (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, you can go ahead and merge Megumi and Tia, I was not able to find notability for them.DragonZero (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Anime Merges
Hi TTN,
I never thought I would say this, but I am glad to see you back here, and as such sincerely welcome you back.
A small request: Could you please list proposals for, and in progress, anime and manga related mergers here (just follow the current format)?
Kind regards,
G.A.Stalk 10:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of Paper Mario series characters
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Paper Mario series characters. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Paper Mario series characters. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi
If you have time, could you merge the character articles into this list? List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters. Thank you. DragonZero (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Categories on redirects
Per Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, there are instances where this is appropriate. A specific example regarding fictional characters discusses keeping them in media-specific categories (like Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters) to maintain "lists" though not in other fictional categories like Category:Fictional raccoons.— TAnthonyTalk 16:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, Template:CharR to list entry is what should be used in those cases. The regular categories become too clogged up if the redirects are kept within them. TTN (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
TFD nominations of animanga cats
Hello TTN, I was wondering if you could take a few extra seconds to list TFD nominations of animanga-related categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga, as this will help draw attention to them. I have a script that can help with this, if you're interested in giving it a try. Thanks in advance! 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
What to do about Salvation, Texas?
Were you planning on doing anything about this "article"? Despite the result of the recent AfD, I was thinking of renominating it, since WP articles deal with single topics and one can't confect a notable article by combining several nonnotable topics that happen to share a name. (A Nobody's use of this tactic while deletion discussions are running has previously been a subject of negative comment.) A mistake in an 80-year-old journal is certainly not notable, and I can't see that the book is notable. The only topic that may be notable is the short film, but frankly I'd contest that as well. What do you think would be the wisest course of action here? Deor (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would turn that into a disambiguation page for now, and split out the two subtopics. Then, each can be nominated or expanded on its own merits. TTN (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- To respect the close in which the closer said to discuss merges and other editorial decisions on the talk page. And what's with dredging up bad faith assumptions from last year? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- To show that you've been told before not to attempt to "rescue" articles by shoveling in material about unrelated topics with similar names. Any further efforts of this sort by you will lead to another thread on the administrators' noticeboard. (Sorry to use your talk page for this, TTN, but AN deletes all messages I try to leave on his own talk page.) Deor (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- What I have been told in bad faith is not really relevant and nor are attempts to bully/threaten me or any other editors. A discussion closed as no consensus with a call to "Editorial decisions, such as merging/redirecting, should be discussed elsewhere" and so acting unilaterally and starting yet another AfD a mere day later is hardly considerate to the administrator's closers or any effort to see if merges, splits, redirects, etc. are workable. Seriously, it would have been that harmful to first try discussions on the relevant talk pages per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE? Immediately renominating is akin to immediately recreating a deleted article. Neither is really helpful and likely to have desired results. Just as deleted articles being immediately recreated are usually redeleted, so too do most editors find day later renominations pointy, i.e. trying to force one's way on the community and in disregard of a discussion that just closed. Where was there any discussion with the administrator who closed the first Afd? Where are the merge discussions on talk pages as the adminsitrator suggested? Or is this another case of you don't like me and because I argued to keep and it wasn't deleted, well, you can't have that? If so, then that is not really fair to the others who argued to keep and worked on these articles. I am after all not the only editor who worked on the Salvation article, as Michael Smidt worked on the film portions. Please be considerate of your fellow editors' efforts and give some greater credence to closers for the same reason why it has been a long, long time why I have not bothered starting DRVs or just going ahead a recreating deleted articles. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- The entire reason I have to do things like this is because of people like you. You don't care about quality articles or proper information management. You obviously know the difficulty of trying to start discussions for articles only looked at by anons, yet you still state that a discussion should have taken place. The only thing you care about is pure numbers and for some reason you actually care about edit history. I really suggest that you stop worrying about minor fiction articles, and start using the time you would gain to really do something good, like bringing something to FA status. TTN (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Editors matter. Those anons frequently lay the foundations of articles and eventually become established eidtors. We do not cultivate their time and efforts by dismissing them as somehow inferior to us or disregarding their opinions altogether. I care about edit history, because authors and contributors who are not paid for their work should at least have their contributions remain public and also because edit histories are useful when considering RfAs as only admins can see deleted contributions. As far as telling me to not worry about fiction articles and work on bringing something to FA status, if you would like to do just that, I would gladly help. Why not lead by example and show us how to bring some of these to the next level? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, only like twenty-five percent of actually editors matter, and an even lower percent of anons matter. If the articles that they've worked on do not contribute anything to the site, their edit histories do not matter either. I doubt an RfA will come down to a few edits on some minor character, so that doesn't matter either. What I do is actually beneficial to the site. I merge and redirect articles until they are in a state where they can actually be edited, and often trim them to make sure that they do not go back to the way they were. You attempt to save such articles no matter what, and then you never even touch them again. I don't know about your activities outside of filibustering AfDs for fictional topics, but I'm sure they are probably actually useful. If you were to take the wasted time, and mix it with those activities, you would be far more productive. As for myself, I don't have the attention span to productively work on building articles. I can spend an hour chopping down a character list, but I get bored after five minutes while looking for sources. TTN (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Editors matter. Those anons frequently lay the foundations of articles and eventually become established eidtors. We do not cultivate their time and efforts by dismissing them as somehow inferior to us or disregarding their opinions altogether. I care about edit history, because authors and contributors who are not paid for their work should at least have their contributions remain public and also because edit histories are useful when considering RfAs as only admins can see deleted contributions. As far as telling me to not worry about fiction articles and work on bringing something to FA status, if you would like to do just that, I would gladly help. Why not lead by example and show us how to bring some of these to the next level? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- The entire reason I have to do things like this is because of people like you. You don't care about quality articles or proper information management. You obviously know the difficulty of trying to start discussions for articles only looked at by anons, yet you still state that a discussion should have taken place. The only thing you care about is pure numbers and for some reason you actually care about edit history. I really suggest that you stop worrying about minor fiction articles, and start using the time you would gain to really do something good, like bringing something to FA status. TTN (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- What I have been told in bad faith is not really relevant and nor are attempts to bully/threaten me or any other editors. A discussion closed as no consensus with a call to "Editorial decisions, such as merging/redirecting, should be discussed elsewhere" and so acting unilaterally and starting yet another AfD a mere day later is hardly considerate to the administrator's closers or any effort to see if merges, splits, redirects, etc. are workable. Seriously, it would have been that harmful to first try discussions on the relevant talk pages per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE? Immediately renominating is akin to immediately recreating a deleted article. Neither is really helpful and likely to have desired results. Just as deleted articles being immediately recreated are usually redeleted, so too do most editors find day later renominations pointy, i.e. trying to force one's way on the community and in disregard of a discussion that just closed. Where was there any discussion with the administrator who closed the first Afd? Where are the merge discussions on talk pages as the adminsitrator suggested? Or is this another case of you don't like me and because I argued to keep and it wasn't deleted, well, you can't have that? If so, then that is not really fair to the others who argued to keep and worked on these articles. I am after all not the only editor who worked on the Salvation article, as Michael Smidt worked on the film portions. Please be considerate of your fellow editors' efforts and give some greater credence to closers for the same reason why it has been a long, long time why I have not bothered starting DRVs or just going ahead a recreating deleted articles. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- To show that you've been told before not to attempt to "rescue" articles by shoveling in material about unrelated topics with similar names. Any further efforts of this sort by you will lead to another thread on the administrators' noticeboard. (Sorry to use your talk page for this, TTN, but AN deletes all messages I try to leave on his own talk page.) Deor (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)