User talk:Edgarde/2008
This page 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. |
WP:FG
Hey, just wanted to stop by and say congrats that the
- Thanks Qst. I'm looking forward to seeing your revamp. Will you be linking Portal:Family Guy to the WikiProject and vice versa? I'm appreciative of all the good work you have been doing for WP:FG; no one was more surprised than me to see so many episode articles reach GA.
- Please don't credit me for the 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Street Children In Angeles Article
Hello Edgarde, do you mind having a look at the following article....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_children_angeles_philippines I started and seeing if you can tidy it up a bit, as well as give me some advice and guidence on some mistakes I may have made and suggestions on how to improve it and make it more encyclopedic, kindest regardsSusanbryce (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Merging at Nursery Cryme
Hi. When merging articles on Wikipedia, please remember to include in the edit summary a direct link to the merged article. This is necessary to indicate authorship history in accordance with the requirements of
- Thanks for saying this, a couple of wikipedians got annoyed by this. -20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.97.7 (talk)
The Xiph logo
Hi, I'm some guy. Okay not just any guy: a guy in Xiph, the makers of Vorbis, Ogg, etc. Anyway, just noticed you uploaded our logo here and that's a big no no for us. You used the rationale of our Wiki license (CC BY 3.0) but that doesn't apply to the logo. Listen, I'm not here to badmout you, but I don't have time to solve this, get with the mods, ask for deletion, proper reason, etc. I would appreciate if you would help me out. I understand you are using the logo for advocating the use of Vorbis and that's awesome; we really need people to help us promoting our formats, but try to avoid to use the Xiph own logo as that is trademarked. We have a free-logo, though, that you can use for this purpose: it's the one we use for Spread Open Media and it's released on the Public Domain. You can find it on Wikimeda Commons under the Category Spread Open Media. I personally like this blue version, which I'm not sure I ever got to upload to Commons. If you care about this issue, reply on my user page or e-mail me, whatever you prefer.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves talk / contribs (join WP:PT) 04:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for contacting me. I have requested "speedy deletion" of this image file by adding {{Db-imgcopyvio}} to the licensure section of Image:Xiph.org.gif. Usually speedied images are removed within a few hours.
- I will look for free replacement images at Wikipedia Commons some time later.
- I regret this error and hope it has not damaged your image in any way. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comments on citation and external links
Thanks for your advice. I'm still getting to grips with citation and did worry about whether people would be able to find the relevant bits. I'll try to take on board what you're saying.
I believe the external links I added did conform to policy. They mostly refer to the new issue of International Socialism, which has just become available online. They each add substantially to the relevant article (I think), but if you disagree I'd be more than happy to look at the cases you think are dubious and remove if necessary.
I've tried to use citation where I think there is a particular relevant point in the journal article, but in some cases the articles I've referred to contain a whole analysis of the topic of the wikipedia page and deserve to be external links (eg neoliberalism, happiness, Imagined Communities).
Piquant (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Script
Hey edg.! I do know a guy working on a Fam Guy script: ME!!! That's right, I'm working on a Family Guy script, I run a Family Guy society, I watch it every night, and yes, I have no life! And I would love to talk to you about it, but I don't have an e-mail adress. But how about we talk about it on the Family Guy Wikia? How about that? Type to ya' later!--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Scratch that. I decided to get into the 21st Century and I got e-mail. So you can e-mail me here. Can't wait to hear from you! With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You still alive ed? I haven't heard from you in a while. Just checkin'. --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, ed, I think I shold tell you that the Whoes Turn segment I sent you wasn't exactly the best one. They've gotten better, but that one was my first one. Just saying. With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your edit summary
I know how you feel man, due to the fact that I was on vacation I couldn't voice my opinions on Peter's other father. Only if everyone could vote before time runs out.
Objective Episode Standard
I saw your support for my statement. I would like to propose this as an objective standard:
- Notable episodes are those that meet any of the following criteria:
- has been nominated for individual awards by a notable organization;
- have had elements of the episode nominated for such an award (i.e. "best supporting actor" for a guest-starring role);
- reached an unusual peak of ratings (such as the finale of M*A*S*H);
- achieved other notoriety due to an unusual impact on the real world(the "seizure-causing" episode of Pokemon; the Trapped in the Closet episode of South Park, etc.)
Can you think of any specific additional criteria?Kww (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think real-world notability may be the only acceptable notability. My favorite criteria for Family Guy episodes are lawsuits and 17:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that cleanup. I am going to try and work on some Family Guy pages soon enough, will you be able to help me with the
- I am happy to support such efforts, and am adding Carter Pewterschmidtto my watchlist.
- 18:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Statement supported by
Done; it's been removed from the primary discussion page. Once I have the time later today I'll probably make a statement - going to need to dig up a report of such a purge for it though.
On an unrelated note, that lolcats picture on your user page has to be the best one I've seen thus far ;)
~Floppie(talk • contribs) 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Central discussion of objective criteria
Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:PinkFloyd-album-saucerfulofsecrets-300.jpg)
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. BJBot (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Wall Live-300.jpg)
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. BJBot (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't need your warnings, thanks.
January 2008
- Right, but agree with me, he is acting like a kid right? Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 03:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes kids can be cool, like me! but the other half are, well, vandalists or just annoying. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 03:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Debate over Article for Deletion: Clemson University football recruiting scandal
- Thanks for your help standardizing refs in this article! talk) 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Your right...
...I'm wrong. I'll keep that in mind next time. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
A Cappella
Thanks! :D 86.44.6.14 (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Evilmonkey
A tag has been placed on
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pinkfloyd 50.jpg)
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. BJBot (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pulse-300.jpg)
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. BJBot (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
User:Edgarde, I award you this Barnstar a gesture of
appreciation for your help in making me a better Editor on WikipediaSusanbryce (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC) |
Re: Nice work
My work here is due to a combination of mild OCD and a life spent absorbing music through every pore in my body. Thanks for the recognition—I keep planning on leaving but then something else sucks me in. Cheers! Precious Roy (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
New section -header
e- rE the triv/guideline discussion,
I am fairly certain that i saw somewhere a statement to the opposite gist to this one which currently forms part of the text of this guideline (second section). My recollection is a statment to the effect, in fact, from User Jimbo, if memory serves, to the effect --if information does not need to be included then it does not need to be included, or some thing more like that than the "linked words". It was on an early talkpage, or archives. I am thinking Iar:talk, although it is more logical that it be talk:OR, or talk:V or some BLP; it is here my memory fails me . Does any of this seem familiar to you, at all? cheers nbg Newbyguesses - Talk 00:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure which quote you're referring to, but 2 separate Jimbo quotes come to mind:
- on WP:ORor unsourced statements: better no information than information such as this (very approximate wording). This sounds closest to what you describe. The quote is from an email list, and is reprinted in a few places around WP.
- on Trivia: The important thing is, Wikipedia is NOT a trivia collection. [1]
- on
- Do you mean either of these? If it's the first one, let me know and I can hunt it down for you. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the first one, still thinking I saw it in an archive of talk:Iar, thanksNewbyguesses - Talk 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Got it.
Removed from 02:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."
- My mistake. It was restored, and is still at the bottom of Wikipedia:Verifiability. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Dont ignore *Ignore*
You might like this one. Then again you might hate it, but dont blame—Newbyguesses - Talk 00:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There's an ongoing controversy over whether those additional navboxes at the bottom of Family Guy episode articles are desirable. I think they have all been removed once or twice. Would you care to join
04:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)I'd be happy to take a look at it. Can you be more specific as to which navboxes you're talking about? Give me an example. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I hit the wrong Talk page. The editor I wanted to communicate with is Cyberhawk241 (talk · contribs). The edit in question was this one. :Thanks for getting back to me on this. I will bring this up on Cyberhawk241's Talk page. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
W. Thomas Smith Jr.
The assertions made against Smith are defaming a respected journalist, and began with a concerted blog campaign against him in National Review.
Wikipedia is asserting that he has been shamed, which is complete false.
He has been vindicated by many sources and the page on Wikipedia is extremely biased against him. —Preceding
- Thanks for your reply. The word shamed is highly POV, and that got past me. I appreciate your pointing that out. I don't see any sources for Smith being "vindicated" however—merely defended—and I don't see how the sources provided are "defamatory". This article has been subject to 05:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Administrative nomination: Please consider this posting
We were in an AfD dispute last year. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ernie_(Family_Guy)
I noticed that you removed Image:IM IN UR WIKI RVRTING UR EDITS lolcat.jpg "I'm in your wiki reverting your edits", but based on the complaints above, your poor behavior in nominating AfDs has not changed.
As
- I had become involved in the “articles for deletion” venue, where I began becoming the target of immense hatred...All the while, I wondered why the hell I was doing it. I began to realize that, for me, the nasty truth was that much of it was a power trip. Oh, don’t get me wrong: my actions were taken because, in part, I did truly believe that the articles I nominated didn’t belong. But it was indeed a manifestation of a darker side of me — I enjoyed the fact that I could hurt someone — make them angry and mad and defensive. Because in my real life, that’s not something I do. I’m Mister Friendly with nearly everyone I meet, and I’m actually a really nice guy in about 99% of circumstances. But something about the process brought out the worst in me — aggression and adrenaline, all funneled through a keyboard without danger of being punched in the face. Resisting the temptation to say “fuck you, fanboy,” and instead turning it into a passive-aggressive “I truly believe that your article is not notable, and would remind you that Wikipedia has policies regarding not attacking your fellow editors and being civil to them” (ah, did I have a gift for the bull-lingo) ...I got a dark thrill out of seeing people froth and rage and turn into drooling rabid ready-for-heart-attack messes because they weren’t getting the fight they wanted out of me. And another side of me looked at that dark thrill and went, “What the fuck are you doing, Mike?”
Yes, I sincerely believe your deletion of the Ernie (Family Guy) article was in bad faith. I am glad that you have the moral certainty and superiority, in your infinite wisdom, to decide what is "good" and what is "bad".
I want other editors who come here with grievances about your wikilawyering and manipulation of wikipolicy to push your power trips, to read the above quote, and understand why you probably do it.
In addition, many editors who want to become admins start by putting pages up for deletion. I hope this quote and the way you push your self-righteous power trips is what causes you to lose your admin nomination.
I am not the first nor the last person who will direct their "immense hatred" toward your "aggression and adrenaline" to "hurt someone".Odessaukrain (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a bit disappointed because sufficient time has passed since this AFD for you to reconsider some of these opinions, and perhaps gain some perspective. consensus of Wikipedia editors, and for good reason. You have no reason to insult me on my Talk page. I must ask you please to not post further harangues on my Talk page. / edg ☺ ☭05:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry so long in my response.
- Your original response on my page,[2] and your edits on your page,[3] in which you prominently put this at the top of your posting:
- [[Image:IM IN UR WIKI RVRTING UR EDITS lolcat.jpg|thumb|right|Teh kitteh in qweschun]]
- [[Image:IM IN UR WIKI RVRTING UR EDITS lolcat.jpg|thumb|right|Teh kitteh in qweschun]]
- and your message to me on your user page[4]
- shows that despite your passive aggressive tone, my assessment is probably correct. Odessaukrain (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I need to make this clear. Please do not post further comments on my Talk page. If you have issues with me, consider filing a 23:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Spam
Thanks for removing the spam links. I am going to sleep now so will probably continue discussion later. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You're very patient
I was looking at the user talk of Mslatif and saw your gentle approach to his seven spam links. I couldn't find a "barnstar of patience" so I guess that means I should get off my lazy posterior and design one, but until then I think this should do.
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
I, Peter Deer (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC), have awarded this barnstar to Edgarde for displaying patience, tolerance, and kindness towards other wikipedians. |
- Thank you Peter. I should admit however that only by leaning heavily on tools like {{uw-spam1}} (the template used on User talk:Mslatif) can I exercise this gentle patience with spammers. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Still beats mine. I usually jump straight to 3 when someone's blatantly vandalizing it. When it looks like it could possibly be a mistake I start out as nicely as possible, but when they delete an article and replace it with 'poop' I prefer not to mince words. Peter Deer (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed from Talk:Muhammad/FAQ
I removed that whole section from the FAQ - there was no consensus to add it to the FAQ and I seriously object to the leading tone, poor sentence construction etc. I've told the author to go back to the talkpage and get further input on the matter. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay I thought this had been settled with the new item included, and I was trying to nudge it toward being more encyclopedic. I'll zap it now. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what he meant by "casual" Muslims either. Moderate, maybe? Lapsed? He pretty much C&P my answering comment straight from talk page, and I'd be the first to admit that my responses weren't encyclopedic. Thanks for the help, even if we all jumped the gun on consensus a bit.. -MasonicDevice (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)