User talk:U-Mos: Difference between revisions

U-Mos, I don’t know if this is your user talk page or not, but how the hell did you manage to get your User page and your talk page deleted from this???? - Bagel7^T's 01:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, oh I see. That makes a certain amount of sense I guess. - Bagel7^T's 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to have ruined the Music producer stubs / Record producer stubs categories yesterday while attempting to redirect the former to the latter (see my recent edit history). Needs fixing some way or another. U-Mos 15:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page has to be otherwise blank in order to act as a redirect. If you've moved all the included information from the Music producer cat to the Record producer cat, blank the page, then add the redirect. Lara❤Love 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the assumption on the CfD page. Relata refero 18:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Proposed Deletion template has been added to the article Romesh Dodangoda, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. tomasz. 15:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The New Regime requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. скоморохъ ^ѧ 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Beijing Cocktail, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of The Beijing Cocktail. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; you say it was given later in the article. What number is it? —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should not base your edits on other articles but rather the wp guidelines for the usage of copyrighted images. You should also consult WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, as to the problems with this approach. The wikimedia foundation aims are stated here, and may help you understand the issue with these images. I would also invite you to undo this edit. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my latest edit-summary, and the links I included in it. Please also do not continue to revert-war, but rather discuss per WP:BRD. My point is that we don't know she won't be in ep8, 9 or 10; or that her small cameos don't count as appearances. I know it's likely that what you say is true, but likely ain't enough. Sorry. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I removed it for being unsourced, and then later read the source myself....I was tempted to put it back, but as you say, how to source it. Feel free to add it in again, I won't remove it. I don't really understand why official myspace pages aren't considered reliable....many bands now only use myspace rather than having another additional site. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When reverted, please take the time to head to the discussion page and seek discussion on the matter. Simply reverting again creates an environment that fosters edit-wars. I've removed the material you have added in as speculative and synthesis. Please use the discussion page in order to advocate re-adding it. I would also like you to wait until the discussion is concluded; ie, don't state your points and then revert the points back in. Thanks - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you said in theory. But let's look at the cases in point: the "little shop" mentioned in a direct reference to two previous episodes. That's in no way speculation, it's a blatant reference. I don't fully understand what you mean by synthesis, but I assume it's along the lines of making very contrived links to previous events (such as the archaeologist-benefactor relationship point that you quite rightly removed). It certainly ain't that. Squareness gun: a weapon that has been seen in a previous story, given the name that Rose Tyler coined in that previous episode. Again, nothing wrong with that. I reverted under the assumation it was a mistake, as these points are blatantly notable. I will not revert a second time without discussion, but I would conversely invite you to explain exactly how these points are not relevant/notable. U-Mos (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to look at how you are using the word "referencing", U-Mos. In the episode, the Doctor did not say "remember when I said I like a little shop?", which would in fact reference something that happened before. However, he does not say that. The reference to the earlier situations is one we are making ourselves. That is the core of synthesis. We cannot connect those dots; we can however, cite (a reputable, reliable and verifiable) someone who connects those dots for us. It doesn't have to be "very" contrived. Anything where it the connection relies upon you - and not a citable source - to do the connecting is synthesis. It's a form of original research, and we aren't allowed as editors to contribute in that way.
If you would like me to explain more about some of the subtleties of synthesis after you read the WP:NOR bit on synthesis, please feel free to ask. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wasn't sarcasm. It was me asking for a citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to re-examine your posts before posting them, U-Mos. Suggesting that controversy only would arrive if I chose to edit or assuming I am being difficult simply because I you don't like my position on policy. osting thusly is unfriendly and unprofessional. If you don't like editing with me, go somewhere else, as I am not going anywhere. I would appreciate more professionalism, please, as I am being nice, I would appreciate the same from you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say, I've seen four or five posts in which U-Mos has replied to you, one of which - at WT:WHO - where he agreed! Not only did I agree with him in all of them - and thus agree with you, Arcayne, at WT:WHO, but I thought they were perfectly civil and reasonable. I think you may be being a little over-sensitive. That said, telling another editor to "go somewhere else" because you're "not going anywhere" doesn't suggest great sensitivity - to others' feelings at any rate. The point of Wikipedia is that we all get along, and leaving a problem rather than fixing it is always going to be a less preferable option, not to mention a less professional one.

Sorry, U-Mos, that wasn't really addressed at you :-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wold concur with that reasoning, TT, but remember that civility and sensitivity is a two-way street. If U-Mos posts defensively (as if expecting me to take his head off), it sets a pall on interaction. I can agree with you while making it seem like you are a dolt for disagreeing, or qualify that agreement enough so that it comes across as less than ringing endorsement. From the last flare-up, I think its a little appropriate for everyone to either be more civil or to leave the article until they can find their happy place again. As I have not been confrontational, perhaps it would be nice if everyone adopted the same stance, as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I love editing with you; a bit of healthy disagreement does wonders for the heart. I apologise if I was defensive, but (whether intentional or not) I have found some of your posts to be rather confrontational and abrasive at times. I suggest we wipe the slate clean, as after all we are both trying to fight the good fight here. Until next week's Doctor Who, at least... U-Mos (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deal. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, could I trouble you to begin indenting your posts? It helps preserve conversation flow by indicating htat you are responding to another person's post, either specifically or generally. Thanks in advance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I indent sometimes. I just think it starts getting a bit stupid when it's up to, like, 5 in a row. If I'm directly replying to a point I always do. I guess I'm yet to pick up on the finer points of that. U-Mos (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course, after a point (say, 7 indents) it does become tedious. When it gets to that point, I usually start with ":(←dent)" to signify that I am outdenting for sanity (and Great Justice). Indenting before then, or not indenting at all leaves folk (or so I am told) with the impression that you don't care what the person before said and you are essentially ignoring their post. Now, I think that is a bit thin-skinned interpretation, but there is a lot to be said for making conversational flo easy to follow. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←dent) As well, I would ask that you maybe take a closer look at the non-continuity edits you are reverting in Forest.., as some of them are pretty useful edits. As far as the continuity bits are concerned, you might find it helpful to your argument to allow a comparison of articles, showing one with continuity points and others without. As well, it is extremely useful to help pare down the continuity sections to include only those bits which the article cannot do without (which is why my edit retained some points) and which are either trivial or weak representations of continuity. However, you are going to do what you will. I would point out that both of us are at our 3RR for the day, and neither of us seems at all willing to compromise. Perhaps the reverting is not going to accomplish the task in a 'who's-got-the-bigger-dick' revert competition. Perhaps it would be better to simply talk more and revert less. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, perhaps your message on my talk page would have been better received if you hadn't started off by calling my edits vandalism - we both know that they aren't - that they represent a difference of opinion and not some mindless puke about how the episode 'TEh sHiT' or whatever. Maybe take the time to realize that I know how to use language just as well as you and that if you want positive feedback from your posts, you need to provide it in the first place. This has come up before. I am not trying to be dismissive, but I simply do not deal well with folk who want - no, demand - respect whilst at the same time refusing to tender it themselves. Maybe think about that before you ever offer an edit summary like you did here again. If you are trying to garner my friendly cooperation, that is not the way to go about it. I would in fact suggest that it has precisely the opposite effect.

Secondly, I do not see anything which is "highly controversial" about this edit, and I would invite you to express what you find so gawd-awful about it, especially when you took my advice to actually read the edit and realized that you were removing good edits along with the continuity stuff. I will ask you again to take a good, hard look at the continuity bits that were removed (note that I did not remove all of them but only those that were not notable, were trivial or synthesis), and re-examine whether they are truly defensible or not. I assure you they are not.

This overriding hostility regarding me simply because I want to improve the article and bring them into line with the policies and guidelines that every other article in Wikipedia has to follow - it has to end before you are reported for your bad faith. I think you have many fine qualities as an editor (and yes, since you've watchlisted my contributions, you shouldn't be surprised that I've perused yours), but your protectionism of Doctor Who episode articles can easily be interpreted as ownership behavior, though I am sure you aren't aiming to leave that impression.

I ask you to take a breath, relax, and perhaps tolerate an edit you disagree with while you discuss the matter to conclusion in the relevant pages. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if you cannot post politely and civilly on my talk page, you may not post there at all. Characterizing my posts as laughable was pretty much the deciding factor to essentially ban you from my tak page. When you apologize and/or adjust your temperament, you may ask for the privilege again, but until then, it might be best for you to respect my request, and stay away. Though unasked, I will not post on yours. I think we're done here. Thanks in advance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Forest of the Dead. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. This applies to both you and Arcayne MASEM 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that edit - I'd obviously messed up... trying to restore cast-names too! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have gotten off on the wrong foot enough times so as to make interaction toxically unpleasant and uncivil. Perhaps I have been too dismissive of your concerns, which I think arises not out of my assessment of your personality but instead of my own distaste with folk trying to remake Wikipedia into a fan-legitimization site. I am not necessarily claiming that you are one of these folk - or at least, I am not saying so as of this moment - and I am going to apologize for having suggested such in bad faith in the past. As you have seen, I tend to respond very dismissively to folk who folk who are uncivil, or who take things personally and attack me. We both know that your commentary and posts have been tinged (if not all-out immersed) with incivility and personal attacks; that is an observation, and not a recrimination or attack in return. I recognize your legitimacy to edit here, and do not consider you an sungle-purpose account with singular, disruptive interests. I do believe that you are here to improve the encyclopedia, and would ask that you extend me the same good faith belief as well. I am not here to destroy or undo the DH episodic articles; my defense of the images in IfD, if nothing else, should help to convince you that I want what is best not just for the article or wikiproject, but the encyclopedia as a whole. We are going to disagree, but that disagreement doesn't have to be the sort that results in us meeting in the middle of main street (or AN/I) at high noon to shoot it out.
I propose that we take a deep breath and try to reboot this interaction, and maybe try to bypass the bad faith interpretations of each other of the past, instead, trying to see the good in the others' edits and viewpoints. Towards that end, I lift the ban on you posting to my user talk page, and invite you to discuss (politely and professionally) any concerns or comments you wish to make with me. I would ask that we all try to follow the Golden Rule and treat each other in the manner in which we ourselves would like to be treated.
Note that I have contacted the other editor constituting this triangle of unpleasantness with a duplicate of this post, so as to garner input from both of you. I await your responses. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see your point. It has always been my practice that when i make an edit (especially one that might cause dissent) I explain exactly why I made the edit, so as to invite discussion. It is not meant as an 'I'm right, fuck all y'all' flip-off whatsoever. If this misperception is consistently being considered, then perhaps I should address that by discussing first, which I also sometimes do. That said, there is a lot of benefit to the BRD model. I have to admit that it drives me absolutely, boot-to-the-face batshit when someone repeatedly reverts my inclusions, expecting edit summaries to smooth over what is assured dissent. I feel that if I am taking the time to edit something in, then someone should offer the courtesy of discussing the edit (which is almost never trivial or ill-advised) before reverting it. It just seems to me to represent basic respect. I know that such is in short supply in the internet, but the times I have encountered polite, reasoned dissent to my edits have been exceptionally pleasant for me. I hope you see what I mean.

I don't think the apologies we have offered each other are a magic bullet that are going to clear up all our clear differences, but I think this (semi)personal talk could serve as a back-channel, to let us talk out potential wrinkles or obstacles to our interaction, so it doesn't get out of hand in article- or article discussion space. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would add references but the thing is, they are nowhere to be found. I know that the cast names i put up are all true as i have seen it in the media before but not know where. I know the part of Paul O'Grady was true as i read it in a magazine when he was interviewed. But i know the cast list was all true.

Charlie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goku1st (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i got the Paul O'Grady bit right that he plays himself. :)

Goku1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goku1st (talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, since episode 3 of the new series, i've been putting up the unoffical ratings for each episode which i get from http://www.gallifreyone.com/ whch they get from BARB. Would you like me to keep putting these up in future? i know there are 2 more episodes to go, but there is still a series 5 in 2010 and 3 specials in 2009. Just thought i'd ask and let you know.

Goku1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goku1st (talk • contribs) 20:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody deleted it off Turn Left. I had put it up, then somebody deleted it a minute after :l And i cant see who it was as i dont have and never will have that power :l

Goku1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goku1st (talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, I only just realised what all that Jahoo reverts were about! That's dyslexia for you. I wasn't attempting to have an edits war over the matter :) steveking89 20:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because the information is now mostly redundant. For example, the bees, stolen planets, robotic hand, and crossover elements are already talked about. The rest borders on original research (e.g. the thing about previous Dalek encounters, H2O scooping). Sceptre ^(talk) 13:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the continuity section on PiC has been removed, same reason (see the filming section). Sceptre ^(talk) 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) articles are written from a real worldperspecive... from a real world perspective... the trailer appeared as partof the episdoe... removing this tyoe of info because it is not incontinuity would be an in universe perspective and is prohibited.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the citation, which only left the notability issue remaining. You moved the info from continuity to a new section, Outside references, which was reverted. Before re-adding it, you should probably recognize that its reintroduction is meeting resistance and initiate discussion, as per WP:BRD, as simply reverting it back isn't going to resolve the issue, and is only going to serve to piss one or both of us off. I am willing to discuss as long as you are. Could you please use the discussion page to explain why the Rosetti poem is crucial to an understanding of this episode? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, could you please cite that standardization? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Oxford English Dictionary (published in a university town well known to Arcayne) defines story as: "an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment; a storyline" - according to this definition, Arcayne's original rationale, that story implied a written work rather than a filmed work, is void. The reference is to a broad aspect of the overall plot of that adventure, rather than a production aspect specific to just that episode, so story is the natural word to use.

As to standardisation, I'm not sure, but in terms of basic common sense and taking words at their "official" definition, I'd say that U-Mos was spot on. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the expression, "Tell me a story, mummy." Meaning a verbal conveyance - if story implied print, then the mother would be bemused at such a request, having expected to be asked to tell her child a story.

Or daddy, of course - gender inclusivity rocks. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I remain unconvinced. His word choice in Wiki-en, in an article which has multiple media expressions was not as specific as necessary. In a film that is only a film, it is appropriate to use 'story', as there is no medium in comparison/contrast.In films based on tv series (X-Files, Sex in the City, etc.), the proper notation is to predicate the word 'story' by which medium it was presented in - ie., 'an ongoing story in the series of alien subversion was not continued or addressed in the movie.' In those articles with more than four different mediums (tv, film, radio, books, comics, etc.), the need for clarification of story usage - or substituting a media-specific word like broadcast or episode - is more concise and therefore desirable.

Lastly, as TT has made a significant point of banning me from his user talk page, I would ask that he practice what he preach, and avoid littering my space with his posts, except in those situations where he is required to notify me.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One final thing, U-Mos: Arcayne is, of course, blanking any comments I make to his/her talkpage - feel free to paste in anything and sign it yourself, if you think it's going to be useful to you. Good luck! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is always a good tactic for someone seeking admin-ship: asking folk to appropriate your comments and sign their own name. My above restrictions towards you appear to be fairly well justified. Please stay the hell away from me; you have nothing to say I find of any value. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]