![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
My edit comment linked to the wrong policy. It should have been WP:BLP. Not all of it was actually unsourced, but there was an awful lot of it, and it seemed to dwell disproportionately on certain incidents. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Csernica, don't revert all that information because a couple things weren't sourced. The majority of it was. It was obviously an outrageous revert and your edit summary was uncivil. I hope you re-examine your borderline disrespectful behavior and I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way. I see up above where someone else, who had a similar problem with you, wrotes this: If you said that all parodies should be included then why are you deleting the entire list. That doesn't make a lot of sense? Tratare 06:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to Csernica on his talk page where I think the rest of this discussion should be anyway Tratare 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
remember the eBay scammer from 2/6/07? that should be added to the moments list. 64.91.201.195 22:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. That case got so popular. I don't see that you've added it, so I will. Tratare 00:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The proliferation of commas in this article is out of hand. It reads like it's written by an illiterate. Please, stop putting, so many comma,s, all, over. Learn to write. 153.104.14.64 16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The tone of this article isn't very... Wikipediaish.
"Both the plaintiff and the defendant receive $100 for their appearance, as well as $35 a day, paid to them by the show as well. [18] [19] In addition to that, it's a free all expense paid vacation for litigants and any of their witnesses that tag along, as the show pays for their flight out to Los Angeles, California. The show also pays for their stay at a hotel. It's a no-lose situation for both litigants, with the exception of possible public humiliation administered by Judge Judy. [20]"
Is it really Wikipedia's job to decide what is win-win and no-lose? 64.191.189.254 04:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It was according to the source that it was a no-lose situation. Repetitive?! :/ uhhh, I don't see anything repetitve and I don't really see mistakes with the article, other than the commas from before Lormos 01:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced claim that Judge Judy "operates according to the principles of the American legal system" which is laughably wrong. 71.237.183.136 08:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I reverted recent edits made on this page by user: Rainbow. This page is supposed to be about the article. Not a bunch of silly accusations made at editors because the Rainbow person (who doesn't do anything very useful as he goes around writing comments on anonymous user talk pages and that's his main contribution to wikipedia ) isn't getting his way today. Also, the info in the article about no-lose situation has been added back as it is not NPOV. Info before it made it obvious that it is a no-lose situation, as litigants never have to pay each other if they use the case, so anyone with a brain can tell it wasn't an opinion. Done Lormos 08:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
i've been reverting ridiculous edits made by Rainbow all day long. he's suggested merging the article with Judith Sheindlin which I quickly put out. Merging the two articles is WAY too much for one article. good luck dealing with him tho, he's hard to get through to and is the type that you'll get caught up in an edit war with. Please keep him from reverting my edits. thanx man ByeNow 09:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
My edits were not defamatory, and I'm a GIRL.
There are too many quotes in this article, which affects the tone - I added the appropriate template. Also, too many of the sections overlap. All the mentions of ratings should be under one section only, for example. I don't believe I added any errors to the article - could you please give specific examples? The comma usage was too much before and now is more correct... I was an English major, but I openly admit I'm not an expert. Kat, Queen of Typos 04:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC} If the merge isn't going to go through, then this page needs to be just about the TV show, and the other page Judith Sheindlin needs to be just about her, with the little section on the TV show. Kat, Queen of Typos 07:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
then add the corrections and stop whining about it. i don't see why a minor thing like putting a few ratings references in the rating section needs a huge template about the whole page needing to be cleaned up. I also don't see why getting rid of a few quotes needs a big template about a bunch of quotes needing to be out of the article. There aren't even a lot of quotes in this article. i could understand if the quotes were in excess and you were asking for help in getting rid of them, but you're obviously totally exaggerating the number of quotes in this article as their only a few in the first paragraph that you can deal with yourself. ByeNow 11:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:CITE for the guideline on how references should be formatted. -- Bfigura ( talk) 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, I've noted that the cleanup section of this talk page has been deleted. I think the article is strongly in need of cleanup, at the very least to become WP:CITE compliant. I'm working on that now. However, if there are other issues, please feel free to re-add the tag, or comment below. Thanks. -- Bfigura ( talk) 18:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of references, particularly in the Criticisms section (among others) that cite unreliable sources. As defined by WP:RS, Amazon customer reviews and geocities pages are not reliable sources that can been used to verify material. Due to this, I'm re-adding the cleanup tag to the article. -- Bfigura ( talk) 18:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is clearly need of some cleanup, so I have re-added the template. The article at the moment is very spread out and not very encyclopedic in tone. It is currently dominated by some editors who have some ownership issues; let's step back and see how everyone can improve the article working together. Examples of things that should be addressed:
And more. Let's work to get it cleaned up, rather than bickering about whether it needs it or not, as it clearly does. ➪ HiDrNick! 14:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
the template at the top of the page will be removed because it just says the article needs clean up. What it's referring to so that can be disputed or worked on isn't even REMOTELY clarified in the template, which means there's a good chance that ugly-looking template could be there for ages like it is on many other articles. The article looks fine to me anyways and the ugly template is the only thing that needs to be cleaned up. throwing a template on this page that says clean up without telling why, and continually putting it there without explaining why, isn't what's going to go on here ByeNow 18:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I have an issue with the templates being thrown in the article without being explained why. You've only just explained one reason for clean up which is simple removing of those to items from the article. Now, we finally have one reason what we needed to work on that can't be explained by just throwing an ugly template at the top. Also, 2 small complaints over the article is not a reason for putting that big template at the top of the page that could be there for ages because no one knows what needs cleaning ByeNow 19:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
None of the thing I saw there were mistakes, but opinions. For example, the article reads like an advertisement is not necessarily an error because it was her opinion and it was only based on 2 edits (better yet, 2 short sentences). I don't think it reads like an advertisement at all. There's even a criticisms section about Sheindlin in it. Anyway, as for the geocites and amazon problem, i don't really know what you're talking about. The info states some fans aren't happy with something about the show or something and that proved it. Enough people commented on those pages about it. Even the Judge Judy site uses it as a reference http://www.judgejudy.com/home/home.asp if you click the DVD on the page. ByeNow 19:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
fair enough, Dr. Hick. i didn't really look at what you wrote and glanced at it. what you wrote looked like a bunch of personal attacks so I mistakenly erased them (Not that I agree with anything that was written in it however because I don't). I moved it to up above because it came before this discussion. As for the salary being on Judith Sheindlin's page, I actually think it has more to do with the show. her current salary and being one of the top woman in entertainment has to do with the show's paying her. the show has to do with entertainment. the salary she got when she was a family court judge before the show has to do more with her life, not concerned with the show. her current salary is has a lot to do with the show. If those sources can't be used because rules specifically say, 'no using websites that users create posts on, under any circumstances', then, and only then, I'd say those sources should be taken out. Please show me where it says that or something to the same effect ByeNow 20:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I have no objection then. ByeNow 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Where's the whole section that was there about the memorable cases? Let me guess. The Rainbow guy or girl is at it again. Whoever removed it, didn't bother saying anything about it on the talk page since that's what everyone seems to be complaining about, why things aren't put on talk pages Lormos 04:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
My edit comment linked to the wrong policy. It should have been WP:BLP. Not all of it was actually unsourced, but there was an awful lot of it, and it seemed to dwell disproportionately on certain incidents. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Csernica, don't revert all that information because a couple things weren't sourced. The majority of it was. It was obviously an outrageous revert and your edit summary was uncivil. I hope you re-examine your borderline disrespectful behavior and I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way. I see up above where someone else, who had a similar problem with you, wrotes this: If you said that all parodies should be included then why are you deleting the entire list. That doesn't make a lot of sense? Tratare 06:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to Csernica on his talk page where I think the rest of this discussion should be anyway Tratare 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
remember the eBay scammer from 2/6/07? that should be added to the moments list. 64.91.201.195 22:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. That case got so popular. I don't see that you've added it, so I will. Tratare 00:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The proliferation of commas in this article is out of hand. It reads like it's written by an illiterate. Please, stop putting, so many comma,s, all, over. Learn to write. 153.104.14.64 16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The tone of this article isn't very... Wikipediaish.
"Both the plaintiff and the defendant receive $100 for their appearance, as well as $35 a day, paid to them by the show as well. [18] [19] In addition to that, it's a free all expense paid vacation for litigants and any of their witnesses that tag along, as the show pays for their flight out to Los Angeles, California. The show also pays for their stay at a hotel. It's a no-lose situation for both litigants, with the exception of possible public humiliation administered by Judge Judy. [20]"
Is it really Wikipedia's job to decide what is win-win and no-lose? 64.191.189.254 04:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It was according to the source that it was a no-lose situation. Repetitive?! :/ uhhh, I don't see anything repetitve and I don't really see mistakes with the article, other than the commas from before Lormos 01:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced claim that Judge Judy "operates according to the principles of the American legal system" which is laughably wrong. 71.237.183.136 08:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I reverted recent edits made on this page by user: Rainbow. This page is supposed to be about the article. Not a bunch of silly accusations made at editors because the Rainbow person (who doesn't do anything very useful as he goes around writing comments on anonymous user talk pages and that's his main contribution to wikipedia ) isn't getting his way today. Also, the info in the article about no-lose situation has been added back as it is not NPOV. Info before it made it obvious that it is a no-lose situation, as litigants never have to pay each other if they use the case, so anyone with a brain can tell it wasn't an opinion. Done Lormos 08:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
i've been reverting ridiculous edits made by Rainbow all day long. he's suggested merging the article with Judith Sheindlin which I quickly put out. Merging the two articles is WAY too much for one article. good luck dealing with him tho, he's hard to get through to and is the type that you'll get caught up in an edit war with. Please keep him from reverting my edits. thanx man ByeNow 09:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
My edits were not defamatory, and I'm a GIRL.
There are too many quotes in this article, which affects the tone - I added the appropriate template. Also, too many of the sections overlap. All the mentions of ratings should be under one section only, for example. I don't believe I added any errors to the article - could you please give specific examples? The comma usage was too much before and now is more correct... I was an English major, but I openly admit I'm not an expert. Kat, Queen of Typos 04:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC} If the merge isn't going to go through, then this page needs to be just about the TV show, and the other page Judith Sheindlin needs to be just about her, with the little section on the TV show. Kat, Queen of Typos 07:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
then add the corrections and stop whining about it. i don't see why a minor thing like putting a few ratings references in the rating section needs a huge template about the whole page needing to be cleaned up. I also don't see why getting rid of a few quotes needs a big template about a bunch of quotes needing to be out of the article. There aren't even a lot of quotes in this article. i could understand if the quotes were in excess and you were asking for help in getting rid of them, but you're obviously totally exaggerating the number of quotes in this article as their only a few in the first paragraph that you can deal with yourself. ByeNow 11:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:CITE for the guideline on how references should be formatted. -- Bfigura ( talk) 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, I've noted that the cleanup section of this talk page has been deleted. I think the article is strongly in need of cleanup, at the very least to become WP:CITE compliant. I'm working on that now. However, if there are other issues, please feel free to re-add the tag, or comment below. Thanks. -- Bfigura ( talk) 18:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of references, particularly in the Criticisms section (among others) that cite unreliable sources. As defined by WP:RS, Amazon customer reviews and geocities pages are not reliable sources that can been used to verify material. Due to this, I'm re-adding the cleanup tag to the article. -- Bfigura ( talk) 18:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is clearly need of some cleanup, so I have re-added the template. The article at the moment is very spread out and not very encyclopedic in tone. It is currently dominated by some editors who have some ownership issues; let's step back and see how everyone can improve the article working together. Examples of things that should be addressed:
And more. Let's work to get it cleaned up, rather than bickering about whether it needs it or not, as it clearly does. ➪ HiDrNick! 14:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
the template at the top of the page will be removed because it just says the article needs clean up. What it's referring to so that can be disputed or worked on isn't even REMOTELY clarified in the template, which means there's a good chance that ugly-looking template could be there for ages like it is on many other articles. The article looks fine to me anyways and the ugly template is the only thing that needs to be cleaned up. throwing a template on this page that says clean up without telling why, and continually putting it there without explaining why, isn't what's going to go on here ByeNow 18:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I have an issue with the templates being thrown in the article without being explained why. You've only just explained one reason for clean up which is simple removing of those to items from the article. Now, we finally have one reason what we needed to work on that can't be explained by just throwing an ugly template at the top. Also, 2 small complaints over the article is not a reason for putting that big template at the top of the page that could be there for ages because no one knows what needs cleaning ByeNow 19:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
None of the thing I saw there were mistakes, but opinions. For example, the article reads like an advertisement is not necessarily an error because it was her opinion and it was only based on 2 edits (better yet, 2 short sentences). I don't think it reads like an advertisement at all. There's even a criticisms section about Sheindlin in it. Anyway, as for the geocites and amazon problem, i don't really know what you're talking about. The info states some fans aren't happy with something about the show or something and that proved it. Enough people commented on those pages about it. Even the Judge Judy site uses it as a reference http://www.judgejudy.com/home/home.asp if you click the DVD on the page. ByeNow 19:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
fair enough, Dr. Hick. i didn't really look at what you wrote and glanced at it. what you wrote looked like a bunch of personal attacks so I mistakenly erased them (Not that I agree with anything that was written in it however because I don't). I moved it to up above because it came before this discussion. As for the salary being on Judith Sheindlin's page, I actually think it has more to do with the show. her current salary and being one of the top woman in entertainment has to do with the show's paying her. the show has to do with entertainment. the salary she got when she was a family court judge before the show has to do more with her life, not concerned with the show. her current salary is has a lot to do with the show. If those sources can't be used because rules specifically say, 'no using websites that users create posts on, under any circumstances', then, and only then, I'd say those sources should be taken out. Please show me where it says that or something to the same effect ByeNow 20:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I have no objection then. ByeNow 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Where's the whole section that was there about the memorable cases? Let me guess. The Rainbow guy or girl is at it again. Whoever removed it, didn't bother saying anything about it on the talk page since that's what everyone seems to be complaining about, why things aren't put on talk pages Lormos 04:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)