User talk:Zadignose
Nice job merging the articles! With a little Wikifying, the new article will be much improved! Kafziel Talk 17:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the encouragement! zadignose 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Belated welcome
By the way, since nobody has officially welcomed you yet, I figured I'd give you a few links you might find helpful. You obviously have the sandbox thing down, and a good bit of the syntax, too. But these are good to keep for reference, especially if and when you start branching out into other areas.
- User tutorial
- Help desk
- Discussion boards
- Guidelines for properly writing and formatting articles
- Policy on maintaining a neutral point of view
- Policy for content when editing articles and creating new ones
- Notability guidelines for people
- Tips for settling disputes
- Links to deletion debates
- Featured article criteria
- Current featured article candidates
- Good articles
- Current good article candidates
A lot of them are pretty dry, but they may come in handy at some point. There's a lot more to Wikipedia than just the articles everybody sees, which you will find if you stick around long enough. And again, if you ever have a question or need help with anything, don't hesitate to contact me. Kafziel Talk 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to WP Films
Hi Zadignose, I saw your comment in WP Films. I answer here, because we have tried to deal with the problem several times but no important step could be taken. There are some minor discussions in archives 2 & 3, but the first important effort to address it is
- Thanks for the links, Hoverfish. I'll try to read through as much as I can, to get caught up on this discussion. Meanwhile, I've opened up a discussion at the Village Pump [[1]], to see if more opinions will flow. I reckon I've been a bit contentious, but I guess that's how it goes.zadignose 15:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen any trace of contentiousness in what you wrote. Some things do need to be discussed. By the way, the "Importance" rating has more to do with the Editorial Team for the distributable Wikipedia Version 1.0 than anything else we could benefit from in Films. I do try to rate some few films as Top, if they are considered masterpieces, or High, if they are important films of an important director, but anything under these ratings is still obscure and undefinable. Maybe "Low" could have also a good use, but I haven't attempted to use it yet. The opinion I find usually is that Importance is mostly POV. Hoverfish Talk 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Ocean's Thirteen
I'm curious what your opinion is on other articles related to scheduled events. Should nothing that is planned to take place in the future ever be listed? Nothing is 100% certain. This is why I feel it's necessary to take things on a case by case basis; the reliability of only the sources of the article in question should be examined, not every source for every scheduled event in the encyclopedia. I think your concern is more with the notability requirements for movies, and I believe that it would be more productive to discuss the guidelines (and possibly changing them) rather than simply nominating them for deletion without prior discussion. It's one thing to promote discussion, it's another to thrust it upon a notable subject when the argument is about non-notable ones.
- But I maintain that I did not thrust the discussion upon a notable subject, as I consider Ocean's Thirteen not-notable. I am also attempting to engage the community in a discussion of notability standards for films at the Village Pump an in the Notability guide for Film. I'm starting to think it's a lost cause. I'm glad that you've shown an interest in discussing it with an open mind, and thank you for the consideration.
- I'm not sure whether I can generalize to articles outside the field of film, but I believe that generally all articles about films not yet released should be considered not-notable. That's because we're not really talking about an "event," we're talking about a work of art, or if you prefer a work of entertainment, which is the subject of an article penned before the work's creation. Such a work can not be deemed notable prior to completion and being viewed by critics and the public. And it's certain that a prematurely scribed article will be based largely on rumor, speculation, and hype which makes it extremely questionable as a quality encyclopedic article.
- Also, I think that many people have a distorted notion about the nature of the film business. Many films fail, the inability to complete or release a film is not so unusual an event, and most films that fail do so not as a loud "bomb," but as an inaudible fizzle. The public quickly forgets what was being so vocally hyped a few months before. We certainly can't presume that a film will be "notable," whether it succeeds or fails, before the fact. Again, at the risk of being redundant, most failures are not notable.
- I might also be skeptical about other "future" articles outside the medium of film, but I think I'm more able to make a reasonable judgment regarding film articles at this point. My ideas seem incompatible with the larger Wikipedia community, but I feel someone needs to speak up about the apparent lack of notability standards.
- I think one of the concerns that some editors had (including me) is that there was very little discussion concerning the sources of the Ocean's Thirteen article specifically. There was mention of your opinion that all sources for unreleased movies should be considered as unreliable (I'm guessing regardless of the quality of their other coverage?), but not the way that the sources of the article up for deletion were unreliable in particular. Just as you have to cite your sources in an article to prove its verifiability, you need to cite them and explain why they shouldn't be used to prove its non-noteworthiness. But, I believe you are going to have a difficult time discrediting sources that are considered reliable fact-checking third parties. I don't think it's enough to say, "Well, they're reliable when they talk about other stuff, just not movies." 86 12:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)]
- Of course, there would have been plenty of time to discuss the specifics of The Ocean's Thirteen article and its sources, had the "discussion" not been terminated prematurely. Rather than allowing a discussion of these relevant points, the nomination was abruptly dismissed. There's no way to give a full discussion of the points relevant to a deletion in just the first paragraph introducing the nomination, and it's not possible to preemptively answer all possible objections. Unfortunately, the necessary dialogue was not permitted to occur.zadignose 12:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think one of the concerns that some editors had (including me) is that there was very little discussion concerning the sources of the Ocean's Thirteen article specifically. There was mention of your opinion that all sources for unreleased movies should be considered as unreliable (I'm guessing regardless of the quality of their other coverage?), but not the way that the sources of the article up for deletion were unreliable in particular. Just as you have to cite your sources in an article to prove its verifiability, you need to cite them and explain why they shouldn't be used to prove its non-noteworthiness. But, I believe you are going to have a difficult time discrediting sources that are considered reliable fact-checking third parties. I don't think it's enough to say, "Well, they're reliable when they talk about other stuff, just not movies."
License tagging for Image:Cobra verde still 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
- Wikipedia:Image use policy
- Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:Films Newsletter
The
Rejs
Thanks for adding the infobox about this film. However, I see you have made a cut and paste move from
Wikipedia:Notability (films) nominated for deletion
Wikipedia:Notability (films) nominated for deletion
This is a courtesy notice: Wikipedia:Notability (films) has been nominated for deletion. --Kevin Murray 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Films February Newsletter
The
March WP:FILMS Newsletter
The
Re your fundamental question
at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Role of truth#Back To Basics: A Fundamental Question. Excellent question! And I agree with a lot of your other comments, too! --Coppertwig 23:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Fairmont, New Orleans
Hi. In
- Alright, that's understandable. The reason why I removed the comment is that it was posted by a user who has repeatedly vandalized articles with strange comments, as well as adding a few reverted comments to Fairmont Hotel pages, so I didn't trust the unattributed comment here, though it couldn't clearly be identified as vandalism. Under other circumstances, I'd have used the citation template as you suggested.zadignose 13:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Nomination for working group
I nominated you at
- Thanks. The process seems murky and complex, but I'll give it a go and see if I can contribute anything useful/significant. zadignose 23:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The
Proposed move of English Defense
With regards to your comments at
For what it's worth, the template has been edited recently so bullet points are used instead of hash marks, and all discussions are already kept in a single section. So it looks like the template is now laid out as you'd prefer it. Regards, --DeLarge 11:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. It seems I did take up the discussion of these points in the wrong place, though I would briefly point out that the few Requested moves I've been involved in did not use this template, and the use of the template is not actually required for Requested moves. Rather, the page instructs users to create a place for discussion that can take "any form that is reasonable..." and then it states: "If a formal poll would help clarify whether consensus exists for the move, you can use the following template." But the formatting of the page, and the prominence of the template, really make it seem that this is standard expected procedure. Anyway, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. zadignose 12:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The
List mediation
Welcome to the mediation group. I hope it won't actually be doing much anything shortly, but am more than happy to see you include yourself. John Carter 18:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hello Zagdignose. The proposed deadline for the tiebreaker poll is quickly approaching. It looks like the option you did not vote for will retain its lead. If that becomes the case, I wonder if you would express your acceptance of that outcome, even though it was not your preferred option, as did T. Anthony and Drumpler. I ask this in the interest of creating the strongest possbile consensus, so that the issue can be settled, and we can move on. Nick Graves 20:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly don't intend to edit against consensus, and I won't stir the pot with a lot of contentious posts right after our latest heated debates. After some time passes, and we've seen how the list shapes up, I think it would be reasonable to further discuss some points regarding the organization/format on the talk page. But I certainly can move on, in the sense that I won't cry foul or dispute issues that are beyond dispute. Is that close enough to what you were looking for? zadignose 00:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Thank you. Nick Graves 01:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom
I have submitted a report on User:Bus stop on the ArbCom page here. As an individual who was involved in this debate, your participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Drumpler 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The
Your contribution would be much appreciated
Zadignose, I like what you wrote in the discussion of
July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The
August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The
This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 14:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Films roll call
An automatic notification by BrownBot 01:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the discussion on the Ossie Davis Talk Page? Thanks. Nightscream 16:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter
The
Please note that
Speedy deletion of TheVOid
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
Image copyright problem with Image:Berlin symphony1.jpg
Thanks for uploading
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
TUSC token 53380064319b3bd3cd77e8929d154c5f
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The
File:Cobra verde still 1.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered,
You were there, way back when...
Based upon recent discussions in several places, I have begun work on an essay that seeks to clarify just how and when discussion of a film-before-it's-been-filmed might per
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Future films#Proposed ammendment to section on Process#Notability Your comments toward my attempt at clarity are quite welcome. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
User:RJR3333 at the To Catch a Predator article
He's violated
That's not true. The consensus was that age of consent would not be used in the article. But I already have proof they used the term on the show, so that's not an issue anymore. There was no consensus about not clarifying "age of majority varies by state". --RJR3333 (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)- Like I stated at the talk page, yes, it is true because every editor there stated that no elaboration was needed. They stated that either just using the term "age of consent" or "underage" is enough, which obviously goes for what you continue to try to do as well. And more than just Zadignose and myself have reverted you on your note. Now go play, and stop trying to debate me at any and every talk page. talk) 16:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)]
- Like I stated at the talk page, yes, it is true because every editor there stated that no elaboration was needed. They stated that either just using the term "age of consent" or "underage" is enough, which obviously goes for what you continue to try to do as well. And more than just Zadignose and myself have reverted you on your note. Now go play, and stop trying to debate me at any and every talk page.
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Zadignose. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Zadignose. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Zadignose. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
April 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:SpaceX Starship are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. That is something wikipedia does not need when debating the merits of content. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review