Jump to content

User talk:Edgarde

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RodentofDeath (talk | contribs) at 19:07, 25 November 2007 (→Hello from Edgarde). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Ryulong/CPenguin

Hiding {{fact}} and similar templates

You do this by adding the line 

.Inline-Template {display:none}

to your personal CSS styling file, Special:Mypage/monobook.css. (Sorry, I noticed the conversation on User talk:Into The Fray and decided that even though it was a bit late, you might want to know the answer.) Hope that helps! --ais523 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Even at this late hour, this is very valuable information. Thank you for showing me this. / edg ☺ ★ 22:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Thanks for the advice. Lord Crayak 23:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Santana album 1969.jpg‎

If you don't add a fair use rationale for this image, it is likely to be deleted. Here are the handy templates: {{Album cover fur}}, {{Non-free album cover}}. Usually, both are needed.

Edit Image:Pink_Floyd-Animals-Frontal-300.jpg if you need a quick example of how to fill in {{Album cover fur}}. / edg ☺ ★ 20:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question : image

thanks for your message - - - i've seen there are 100000000s of album covers with the simple "fair use box"... you mean i have to make the "fur" as well for, for instance, Image:Phillips Michelle Victim.jpg ? kernitou talk 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Phillips Michelle Victim.jpg could use one as well. The only exceptions would be art that is free use (or otherwise GFDL-compatible), which practically no album covers are. Wikipedia is enforcing non-free content rules more strictly now that it did a year ago. Legally this is understandable and necessary, but it has caused much frustration for image uploaders.
For other non-free images (musician promo photos, for instance), use {{Non-free media rationale}}. (example) / edg ☺ ★ 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

santana : done kernitou talk 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good FUR. There is a possible second problem with the Santana cover.
Album covers greater than 315px longest @ 72dpi are considered more than is needed for fair use, and may be deleted. Some discussion of this is on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 26#Need_guidance_on_WP:NFCC.233b. This is especially a concern for album covers because anything big enough to be printed out for a satisfactory-looking CD cover can be claimed to aid piracy, and the record industry is famously litigious. I degraded a bunch of Pink Floyd album covers to address exactly that concern — an item was [tagged for deletion simply for being too big.
Having to do this sucks of course, but since the Santana image has been tagged for deletion once, it's probably in someone's watchlist. In the event it gets tagged for size, I have some instructions on Image:Pinkfloyd_50.jpg#Resolution_degrade.
Sincere thanks for your contributions. / edg ☺ ★ 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks a lot for your helpful help - - - i had a look at the floyd covers so, from now on, i will stay under the 315 rule ('s ok for me: if i need a bigger cover, i can find it on the net anywhere) + i will put a fur on michelle, oops kernitou talk 12:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
santana: done (310x310): too bad, the details are so great!!! kernitou talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
michelle: done kernitou talk 12:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, yes

I would like some help, if you don't mind. When you have time, of course. Jiminezwaldorf 05:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember me?

I don't know if you remember, but a few months back me and you had a dispute over the international broadcasters section on the Scrubs article. Anyway, i was just going back over my talk page looking over old disputes etc, and i realised that i was in fact extremely rude, hostile and accusatory towards you, accusing you of cheating, manipulating etc. I am so very sorry that i was so rude towards you, i'm ashamed i said some of the things i did, and although i could make the excuse that with the stress of work/exams etc it's justifiable, even so, i still feel bad. Therefore i apologise for every single rude statement or implication i made towards you. Sorry--Jac16888 19:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for messaging me. No hard feelings whatsoever. I'd actually gotten so used to hostile correspondence that none of it seemed far from ordinary. This more than compensates. / edg ☺ ★ 22:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
141. Was rude to Edgarde
just kidding. Thank you for your reply, i really don't know what came over me those few weeks, i was snapping at everyone, and i'm sorry that included you. Not any more though, i'm new and improved. Sorry again, and thank you--Jac16888 22:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Canvassing for Category:Notable or notorious antisemites

from User talk:Wedineinheck‎

Why don't you put your vote in support of this Category? Vote Keep so it won't get deleted. Thanks, --Ludvikus 00:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider Wikipedia's rules on canvassing. Deletion discussions are not polls, so votestacking is a disservice to your cause, especially if it is determined you are canvassing to influence the results. / edg ☺ ★ 00:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of any such Wiki prohibition. I'm going to research that right now. Thanks. --Ludvikus 01:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've read the rule. You're mistaken in it's application to me. I've contact that One editor who has actually Used this Category. Accordingly, unless he knows that it's up for Deletion, his use of it is meaningless. So you are mistaken. --Ludvikus 01:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've also just placed the proper notice on the Deletion discussion page. --Ludvikus 01:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rule against canvassing?

Had no idea that existed. If so, I stand corrected. Thank you. --Ludvikus 00:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exception(s) to the rule

I've checked the Rule. It seems that you're mistaken in its application to me. It is not an Absolute rule. In fact, it's very clear that there are circumstances in which canvassing is proper, and good for Wikipedia. Please reconsider you're observation. --Ludvikus 01:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note carefully the exceptions to the general rule - and examine more precisely what you believe I did wrong. Thereafter I expect you to get back to me with an appropriate Wikipedian response. Thank you, --Ludvikus 01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with these rules, and telling an editor how to vote in a deletion discussion is fairly blatant canvassing. The category does not seem to be created by Wedineinheck. What exception do you claim? / edg ☺ ★ 01:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonesense. He's using the Category. You are being Pedantic. We are not in front of a USA voting booth. The guy is a User of the Category. He clearly believes in it. So you are playing with formalities. I'm not Telling him how to Vote. I'm telling him that he will not be able to Classify his characters under that Antisemitic Category unless he Votes Not to Delete. Cann't you see the point. The guy is already Converted User of the System. So are you going to Split Hairs with me? You are simply Wrong, and I hope you can admit it.
And if you insist on splitting hairs - look carefully at the word "multiple". Contacting One Editor is not Multiple. Or what do you think? One editor is the same as Multiple editors? --Ludvikus 01:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soliciting a vote from someone known in advance to favor a certain outcome is blatantly votestacking. I'm not really interested in arguing this. I just wanted you to be aware that you may be crossing a line. / edg ☺ ★ 01:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. And after carefully studying your view, I've come to the conclusion that I've done the right thing. And for the record, here's the first part of the Wiki rule your concerned with (showing the footnotes):
    '''[[Canvassing]]''' is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence
     a community discussion.
     <ref>Any kind of solicitation may meet this definition, including, for example, a custom signature to
     automatically append some promotional message to every signed post.</ref>
     Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written
     to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and
     are generally considered disruptive.
     This guideline explains how to notify editors without engaging in disruptive canvassing.
     <ref>On at least one occasion, a provocative attempt to stack an ongoing poll by cross-posting has contributed towards
     an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in probation and eventual banning by the community.
     An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine.
     Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved.
     If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are
     contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article."
     See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#StrangerInParadise is disruptive]].</ref>
Third opinion: WP:CANVASSING states

A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying on their talk pages certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view, in order to influence a vote. However, the greater the number of editors contacted, the more often this behavior is engaged in, and the greater the resulting disruption, the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions. Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who voted in a previous AfD on a given subject) may be acceptable.

Therefore, Ludvikus did not break the rule in its literal sense, but, as a general rule of "Wikiquette" telling a user to vote a certain was in a discussion is frowned upon. To explain further, the message was only placed on one user's talk page, so it is not canvassing (at least described word-for-word in the canvassing policy), but it is something that is generally looked upon with differing degrees of dislike. Had Ludvikus placed the message on multiple users' talk pages, then it would be a clear violation. As it stands, however, while Ludvikus did not violate the policy, I suggest that they refrain from posting messages like that on talk pages. Hope that's clear enough, and happy editing, ( arky ) 02:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate the Rationality that Wikipedia is producing. First of all, I had no idea of the existence of this rule. And I'm glad to have learned of it this early. The principle I operate under is Fairness - which is at the basis of all systems reflecting any degree of Justice.
Now back to my point. I think it is consistent with the Canvassing rule at Wikipedia for me to contact any editor who is now actively using the Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. And that telling such an editor to Vote to Keep is certainly not Disruptive. It is absurd to think that by so saying I'm influencing that editor. Such an editor obviously believes in the legitimacy of the Category - otherwise why is (s)he using it? --Ludvikus 02:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a matter of fact, now that I think of it, it is perfectly OK for me to go to the Talk page and Solicit Votes - to Vote to Keep the Category - or does anyone advise me not to do so? If not, why not? --Ludvikus 02:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be considered disruptive to the deletion discussion and you may be blocked to permit that discussion to continue without disruption. -- Jreferee t/c 03:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When You Wish Upon a Weinstein

This episode was cited by the media. With the filed lawsuit, When You Wish Upon a Weinstein may receive additional review by others. If you have the time, would you please rework the article with reliable source material. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 03:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{WikiProject Family Guy}} template

Thanks for helping push out the template. Feel free to add ratings for Class and Importance — you certainly know the project as well as anyone here. / edg ☺ ★ 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry, I'm not an episode reviewer, so I will just be adding the template. TheBlazikenMaster 18:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for that then. / edg ☺ ★ 18:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erotica

I added the section back in. The section is referenced, and it is a new movement among student publications. Rather than deleting it, it should be expanded or moved to another article. In fact, it is the most referenced part of the article. If you delete it again without first discussing it on the talk page, it may be seen as vandalism. 151.197.111.178 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you value talk page discussion so much, you could have started that discussion instead of reverting and accusing me of vandalism. / edg ☺ ★ 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you objecting to my not putting my comment in the correct section? / edg ☺ ★ 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't move the discussion to my Talk page after telling me to discuss this in Talk:Erotica. / edg ☺ ★ 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comments here merely reflected what i've already said on the talk page. I was responding to your comments on my talk page. So, my comments here were just comments about your comments. In the end, I don' want to edit war, bit i do feel that that section adds to the article.151.197.111.178 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section has been removed by three different logged-in editors. This suggest you are going against WP:CONSENSUS. Please don't restore it. Better to start a stub article and link it from Erotica. / edg ☺ ★ 21:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this suggests a terrible lack of perspective. I have made only one edit ever to this section. Since then I have discussed this with you on talk pages, and made suggestions. I really resent being accused of "edit warring and bullying". / edg ☺ ★ 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
151.197.111.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked for 3RR.
Your apology would seem more sincere if you
  • weren't asking me to "agree to" leave the article the way you want it,
  • had not placed a bogus {{editprotected}} template (which is certainly either ignorance or vandalism),
  • had not made a manipulative WP:RFPP request,
  • had not threatened to report me repeatedly over bogus infractions,
  • had not made Edit summaries describing edits by others as "vandalism", and
  • had not repeatedly editing against obvious consensus, beyond 3RR.
And yet you accuse me of "edit warring and bullying". My most constructive suggestion for you at this point would still violate WP:CIVIL, but I sincerely do hope you get the kind of help you need.
It would also be nice if you registered an account. / edg ☺ ★ 22:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged disruption message posted on my Talk page

You seem to think that a message was left here that wasmeant for me. And you seem to have posted it on my page. I have no idea what your talking about - and I wish you had not done that. You should contact the person who sent it and tell them that they have made a mistake. --Ludvikus 02:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly meant for you — examine the diff. Since Jreferee is answering a question for which you solicited an answer, I thought it would be polite to pass it along. Sorry if this causes problems — in the future I won't bother. / edg ☺ ★ 02:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was reckless of you to simply post an apparent editors threat to Block a user without the appropriate precaution that it be noticed by the parties involved. You should not have done that Cut & Paste. Since I'm not an inexperienced User, I was easily able to find out what has been done. But such reckless action could cause problems for another. Why didn't you simply tell the two parties what had happened? What you did is improperly fix an administrators un-sent apparent notice. Do you understand what I'm trying to explain to you? --Ludvikus 03:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed you would understand. You have my apologies. / edg ☺ ★ 03:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies are not necessary, if your intent was to do good, which I now think it was. However, do you understand my point about the problems that could result? --Ludvikus 03:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP

Could you please keep an eye on my talk page? You know very well, that my edit summary was all according to rules. And you also know very well it wasn't rude either. But I really can't handle this IP alone, that IP just won't leave me alone. TheBlazikenMaster 13:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I do watch your talk page, I don't watch your edits — stalking is work and I'm lazy — so I can't comment on the Edit summary in question. The IP is certainly in the wrong for edit warring on your Talk page. However, for what it's worth, working cooperatively often means trying to understand editors who assume bad faith about us. They're worth listening to even if it's just to figure how to work sociably with editors who are easily tiffed off. I must admit this is not one of my best skills, and not my favorite part of being on Wikipedia.
If delete/"I am right" just tiffs the IP further off, try asking questions to find out how the IP interprets the incident. If the IP persists in revert/"no you're wrong!", you can always ask him not to post to this page anymore. That's more of a last resort tho. / edg ☺ ★ 20:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burusera - Full quote

I happened to run across this source while researching some cites for the lolicon article--there was a bit of original research that I was hoping to turn into something viable (and I succeeded). The source mentioned burusera, and when I wikilinked it, lo and behold, there was already a Wikipedia article. Coincidentally, another article mentioned the panties in vending machines. The quote: "Japan is known for its libertine view of sex and fondness for bizarre fetishes, such as a craving by men for girls' panties, which were sold in vending machines just a few years ago." -Jmh123 23:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This is added to the article. / edg ☺ ★ 23:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey

ok i've revised those edits. didn't realize that guy was part of a project as he never explained himself. Grande13 11:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit.

Could you tell me how exactly this discussion can help the article? This article isn't about if the e-mail is fake or not, so I can't see the use. Info like that isn't encyclopedic. TheBlazikenMaster 16:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Thompson reversion

First of all you just threw out a lot of my work.

Second, this is not a real person, and Wikipedia is not a detective agency.

The Stan Thompson gag was in a episode years ago. My edits retained this as a footnote. It is not being thrown out. This has nothing to do with "canon". / edg ☺ ★ 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Griffin

I appreciate you taking the opportunity to talk to me rather than just engaging in reverts when it comes to Meg. As I pointed out on the page's talk section, Family Guy is filled with strange, offbeat (and yet canon) items. In fact, these one-time jokes are how the show in many cases establishes how events came to pass; the plain and simple fact of the matter is that if the show says it (especially, in my opinion, if it does so outside of the obvious cutaways), we have to assume that it's factually canon unless a clear and present outside source says otherwise. I bring to mind several other examples that come into my mind- Stewie's head shape, Cleveland's slurred speech, and how Joe Swanson became originally handicapped are all canon items that originated as the same sort of one-off joke we're discussing at present time. Do we have an actual, outside source, from the show, that clearly and conclusively has stated Meg's parental heritage is not based upon Stan Thompson? 67.94.201.2 04:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an actual, outside source, from the show, that clearly and conclusively states that Meg is a real person, so that information like this is significant, and her article falls under WP:BLP and not WP:WAF? Do we have such a source stating this information is consistent with the rest of the show, and affects how the character is written in other episodes?
I really don't wish to revive this seemingly endless, non-productive discussion. I think a consensus can be arrived at via WP:WAF, but for a few editors holding out that Family Guy is a live newscast of a real family.
Also, I'm somewhat ticked off that you undid a large number of my edits over this petty nonsense. I'm not reverting this anymore. You win. / edg ☺ ★ 04:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come now, Edgarde, you and I both know we're talking about the canonical status of in-universe information, related to the fictional entities on Family Guy. I am going to apologize about the other information that was reverted- it was entirely unintentional. Again, I am sorry about the accidental reversion of your other work, because it does belong here. This isn't about winning or losing, just about what is, or is not. The show has stated that Peter is not her father, so do you not agree that, in an infobox of parental lineage, that accuracy to the show should be maintained? 67.94.201.2 04:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think information this insignificant should be added to the infobox. I think it is sufficient to mention this business in the article, or in this case a footnote. / edg ☺ ★ 04:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But then of course we run into the problem of (in-universe) accuracy. It is indeed a tricky balancing act- that of maintaining the standard of both brevity and being on-point. I think you've done a great job of that, with of course our small disagreement being the only sticking point here. I just don't think it would be accurate if we didn't include Meg's (in-universe) real father in the infobox. And in reality, it seems that it might even be better to have just the brief inclusion of the name, rather than an entire paragraph dedicated to the article. I will, actually, let you decide on this one- you've got a good eye for what should and should not be when it comes to Wikipedia, so, after our 3RR period is up, I won't put the infobox back, if you change it. 67.94.201.2 04:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please stop your edit warring on erotica and work towards consensus. South Philly 01:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recent revert -- I'd hit 3 reverts and was wondering what to do. Do you think the two users are socks? I'm not sure... Gscshoyru 02:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just got here and haven't checked anything, the timing alone would suggest puppetry of some sort. South Philly is the editor who originally entered this information. / edg ☺ ★ 02:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then... should someone file a sock report, then? Because it looks like this is being user to circumvent the 3RR -- note that South Philly stopped when he hit three and Student Erotica started. Also, from Student Erotica's name and what he;s doing, it looks to be a single purpose account... oh and he reverted again... Gscshoyru 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tonite I'm on an unstable machine with a slow connection and could use some help. Could you help me by collecting today's diffs and I'll write up the report? / edg ☺ ★ 03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I shall do so. Could you re-revert Student Erotica, though -- I'm at three reverts, and he's reverted again. Gscshoyru 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be going slow on reverts. South Philly will probably bring in a third account when Student erotica hits 3, so no point in trying to time him out. / edg ☺ ★ 03:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe so. Though that would probably prove our point most certainly... in any case the report is posted. here. Tell me if I'm missing anything. Gscshoyru 03:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, your version is much better than mine. I still have quite a bit to learn on how to do all this stuff, but I'm learning. In any case, someone has noticed, so that's good. Gscshoyru 05:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion in SP report comments

I think it's a bad idea to debate with the accused within Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/South Philly. Answering legit questions is a good thing, but responding to (the inevitable) defensive comments just makes the report longer, and less likely to be read by an admin. WP:SSP is fairly backlogged now, so avoiding extraneous chat is a courtesy to whoever is doing this work.

No biggie. Just a suggestion. / edg ☺ ★ 04:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thanks for it. I just have this... compulsion to answer questions. But I shall abide by it. Gscshoyru 04:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate that you are absorbing the brunt of the invective from this character, probably because the report is filed in your name. I hope this isn't too much of a pain. / edg ☺ ★ 04:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Plus what you've done to my report is a learning experience for me, so next time I will know how to make these things. Besides, what's the worst he could possibly do to me without getting himself blocked? Gscshoyru 04:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation format

Edgarde, I'm totally confused about one of the citations in the Stewie article:

A. Delarte, "Nitpicking Family Guy: Season 4" in Bob's Poetry Magazine, 03.January 2006: 111, 131, 141, 181, 211, 221, 241, 261 http://bobspoetry.com/Bobs03Ja.pdf

I can pull up the issue in my browser, but it only has 32 pages. I thought, maybe you have to subtract 100, and sure enough, Stewie is mention on page 11. But not on page 31, and there is no page 41! How do I make those numbers into page numbers? Another Slappywag Among Petorians 23:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are doing anything wrong. That PDF is only 32 pages, and of those, only pp. 10-26 are about Family Guy. I have no idea what those numbers are. A reference to "Bob's Poetry Magazine" was added to nearly every FG article, and I don't think it's a very good one — self-published, superficial, not at all scholarly. I've removed it from a few articles after reading thru each to determine the link didn't support anything. / edg ☺ ★ 07:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L Word question

I thought perhaps you could help me direct this question to the right place, since apparently Talk:The L Word wouldn't be the place for it:

In season 3, Tina hires Joyce Wischnia as her divorce lawyer, but suddenly in the first episode of season 4 she's Bette's lawyer and she counsels Tina to get a lawyer other than Richard (and I don't even know who Richard is). Did I miss something or did the writers screw up?

Thanks for your help. Donnabella 23:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notability

I think such a highly promoted episode such as the 100th getting leaked is quite notable, while I only posted the link to confirm it existed for the people that kept removing the statement. I feel its notable, and various other pages comment on leaked episodes such as dexter, 24, and more. Although getting leaked is a newsworthy an notable item by itself. I agree no info such as plot details and findings should come from the link, but noting that it was leaked a few weeks early seems to violate no rules. 67.184.160.211 —Preceding comment was added at 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not notable. One year from now this will be too unimportant to call trivia. Promo items go online all the time — it only becomes notable when it has some impact on the product, and the impact itself would need to be sourced. / edg ☺ ★ 23:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

I'm not disputing anything, but just so you know, the assessment importance doesn't need to reflect a real-world ranking. I would say "Top" importance articles would those subject to high levels of attention and inquiry. My favorite example would be anything mentioned in a Presidential speech.

Another example, were there a Microsoft WikiProject, Microsoft Windows might get "Top" importance, where Bill Gates might get "Mid". A Biography WikiProject might give Bill Gates a "High".

I think a subject like Family Guy should have one or two Top-importance articles, that the project really intends to work on. If we tag more, "Top" importance becomes less meaningful. / edg ☺ ★ 18:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

I don't get it? Why are you telling me this and why aren't you reverting me? TheBlazikenMaster 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you think otherwise. As it is within the WikiProject, there isn't a strict right or wrong on this one. / edg ☺ ★ 21:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: This edit

The unregistered user thinks I'm being silly. And I don't really know how to explain. I was wondering if you could get to that Talk Page and explain to the IP why this can't be added. TheBlazikenMaster 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I left him a bit of explanation here. / edg ☺ ★ 22:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits=

FCUK you. That's French Connection (clothing). Sorry I'm being immature, but so what. Ban me please, ban me. 203.220.105.11 04:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Devil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Excuse me.

User:White Devil has several final warnings on their user page. Edit history shows that each time one is received, editor cools it for at least a week, then resumes same vandalism. [1] [2]

This is the 2nd time in two weeks a block was denied because this editor hasn't been active since final warning issued. I'd say this vandal has found a method to evade block.

This account has few or no good edits, and may be vandalism only. I think a block is in order. / edg ☺ ★ 05:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: User:White Devil

See #1 on WP:AIV: "The vandal is active now, has been sufficiently warned, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances." Last Tuesday doesn't count as recent in my book. What you describe may be unusual circumstances, but there appear to be some good-faith edits in the history and I'd prefer to give the benefit of the doubt. If you feel strongly about a block, I'd suggest summarizing the situation on WP:ANI. I'm not opposed to the user being blocked, but I'm trying to play it by the book. Dppowell 05:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not opposed to the user being blocked, may I simply repost this to WP:AIV so that another admin may review this? I think playing by the rules means I do not have permission to vandalize up to last warning every 2 weeks. The proposal that I should have to escalate User:White Devil to the Corps of Administrators because this vandal WP:GAMEs the system so trivially seems pointlessly bureaucratic. / edg ☺ ★ 06:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am reviewing with another admin now. Dppowell 06:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After discussing the matter with another admin, I've blocked him for 24 hours and left an appropriate block message on his talk page. Hopefully, that will send the desired message. Dppowell 06:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Message By the El-Dude-O'

El-Dude-O' likes your style. El-Dude-O' wants to know if you want to be wikiamigo's - El-Dude-O' (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Stokely

Thank you for deleting that promotional link. When I removed it, the dude threw a temper tantrum. Josephgrossberg (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If calling somebody on a wholesale revert where you didn't so much as bother to read what the hell you were reverting constitutes a "temper tantrum" so be it. Have somebody revert some of your good-faith additions sometime and then accuse you of spamming and see how the hell you feel about it. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't argue with a third party on my Talk page. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Settle down, IACB. Josephgrossberg (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PeachyWiki

I notice you are linking peachywiki.com to various articles. That site does not seem to have the sort of uniquely informative content that Wikipedia:External links recommends. If anything, PeachyWiki seems more like an image aggregator, at least for the articles you have linked. Also, since it appears to be at least partially a wiki, it's a self-published site, which per Wikipedia:Reliable sources is not excluded from external linking, but is certainly less valuable. A number of sites exist dedicated to the subject of porn stars, including wiki sites (NikkiWiki is one I know of), and maybe one of these will be established as a useful site the way IAFD is. But I'm fairly certain links to PeachyWiki at this time are spam. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think PeachyWiki is actually a useful resource ala IAFD. Several of its pages give lists of website appearances by porn models, information that only a few places have in any kind of centralized form. For example, this page on Charlie Laine:

http://peachywiki.com/Charlie-Laine.ashx

There are very few resources out there right now that give the equivalent of filmographies for website appearances and I figured PeachyWiki would be one of them. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filmographies are not copyrighted information, and can be found on IMDB (Charlie Laine at IMDb) as well as IAFD. As I stated above, PeachyWiki does not seem to have uniquely informative content. Please do not promote it on Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for website appearances, there exist dozens of porn aggregators, many of whom give comparable reasons when attempting to spam Wikipedia. I'm asking you not to use Wikipedia to promote yet another one. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Edgarde

How are you? sorry i was away, i got ambushed and shot in Angeles and spent time in hospital recovering, im still not well enough to return here but letting you know ill soon be back editing. ive noticed rodent and his clones have highjacked the articles. take care, susanSusanbryce (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Susan. I was wondering what happened. You live an interesting life. I guess I'm glad I don't.
Let me know when you want to resume fussing over the "Trafficking" article. Rather than restart the edit war, we should just head straight to Mediation.
No hurry on any of this. Get well first. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Edgarde, well how exactly can we move forwrd then to mediation, also i want mediation on everything, all the articles i have started or posted and where Rodent has deleted what ive done and tried to force page ownership as well as his personal attacks against me. id like to subit the whole lot for mediation, how can we do this please?Susanbryce (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. First we need to list the articles of concern. Others can be added if they become an issue during the mediation. I'm aware of these:
What others? I think we can define two issues:
  1. Tendentious editing that appear to be WP:POVPUSH by RodentofDeath in the abovementioned articles
  2. History of personal attacks on your Talk page and on User:RodentofDeath, as well as in the articles (Talk page as well as article bodies) and other forums (such as in WP:ANI). / edg ☺ ☭ 02:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Human trafficking in Angeles City. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. /RodentofDeath (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edgarde&oldid=173724877"