![]() | 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 | → | Archive 5 |
Welcome!
Hello, Woodensuperman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
PS: If you need anything at all, please leave a message on my talk page. :) Srose (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. You may be interested in joining the new WP:Films task force which includes Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Danish film!! The Bald One White cat 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see and respond at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Regarding_the_word_.22duology.22. Dcoetzee 05:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
A multi-move was listed with the parameters on separate lines instead of one long line. This causes a glitch which I have not found a way to prevent yet. In the meantime, I fixed the source of the glitch. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Robsinden, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Heptalogy has been removed. It was removed by JHunterJ with the following edit summary '(de-prod; AfDed twice already)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with JHunterJ before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 19:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Bravo for the creation of categories for literature series. Don't know why I didn't think of that myself. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
...but 86.xx.xxx.xxx kept adding so much stuff that I took them off. I have told them before that there is no third batman film, there is no third predators film, that the 1978, 1990 and 2007 bodysnatchers films are not linked, but they don't listen. I am going through the series and reverting, so that I know where to revert back to should they start their bullshit again. For instance, they moved Saw from 6 to 7 films even though 6 hasn't been released. On the trilogy page they keep adding Inside Deep Throat as a sequel to Deep Throat when it is a documentary about the first film. Darrenhusted ( talk) 13:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Re these 2 edits: please explain. Rebuild seems to meet the definition of film tetralogy perfectly, and the word is in wide use to describe these 4 films. Until you've done so, I'm reverting your edits. -- Gwern (contribs) 14:13 18 September 2009 (GMT)
Redmy is a new editor who has been at several articles, combining and reorganising episodes in seasons that contradict available sources. I suspect that most of the problems that you're seeing with List of Rugrats episodesmay be as a result of his recent edits, [1] but I don't know enough about the series to know whether this is the case, but based on his edits to other articles I suspect it is. You might care to look at the pre-Redmy version, [2] and if that's OK, revert to it. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 12:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
When are you going to stop deleting entries in the list of MoC releases? The print catalogue has been available as a PDF file in the MoC site since long ago.
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Walt Disney Platinum Editions. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Disney Platinum Editions. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Your edits have been reverted - again. For one thing, your summaries did not make any sense. Second, the problem happens on your computer only. Please refrain from reverting again. 76.189.169.244 ( talk) 04:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Rob,
I agree that the fixed-width tables problem is inconvenient. I wanted to see what your change were to the page to see what I think about it, because you wanted to have some feedback. I didn't understand where to find the changes that you had made. Here's your original quote on the discussion page so that you know what I'm talking about:
"I see someone has added additional tables to the 30s page in an attempt to reduce table width. I don't think that that these duplicate tables are the way to go, with long, mostly empty rows, but how about the footnotes system? I've updated the first three entries this way - what does anyone think?"
Could you wikilink me to your changes so I know which of those three "entries" you were talking about? Sorry, I should know what you're talking about, but my common sense is running a little low this week. (Maybe I can't find them because they've been reverted, or...I don't know...)
Anyway, thanks.
98.202.38.225 (
talk)
21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Please note that I have found analysis on this subject in scholarly books and have added and cited some of this information in the article. My source searching has turned up quite a bit more beyond what I added and I therefore politely request that you reconsider. Thank you for your time and consideration! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 17:55, 29 December 2009 (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 | → | Archive 5 |
![]() | 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 | → | Archive 5 |
Welcome!
Hello, Woodensuperman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
PS: If you need anything at all, please leave a message on my talk page. :) Srose (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. You may be interested in joining the new WP:Films task force which includes Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Danish film!! The Bald One White cat 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see and respond at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Regarding_the_word_.22duology.22. Dcoetzee 05:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
A multi-move was listed with the parameters on separate lines instead of one long line. This causes a glitch which I have not found a way to prevent yet. In the meantime, I fixed the source of the glitch. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Robsinden, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Heptalogy has been removed. It was removed by JHunterJ with the following edit summary '(de-prod; AfDed twice already)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with JHunterJ before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 19:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Bravo for the creation of categories for literature series. Don't know why I didn't think of that myself. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
...but 86.xx.xxx.xxx kept adding so much stuff that I took them off. I have told them before that there is no third batman film, there is no third predators film, that the 1978, 1990 and 2007 bodysnatchers films are not linked, but they don't listen. I am going through the series and reverting, so that I know where to revert back to should they start their bullshit again. For instance, they moved Saw from 6 to 7 films even though 6 hasn't been released. On the trilogy page they keep adding Inside Deep Throat as a sequel to Deep Throat when it is a documentary about the first film. Darrenhusted ( talk) 13:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Re these 2 edits: please explain. Rebuild seems to meet the definition of film tetralogy perfectly, and the word is in wide use to describe these 4 films. Until you've done so, I'm reverting your edits. -- Gwern (contribs) 14:13 18 September 2009 (GMT)
Redmy is a new editor who has been at several articles, combining and reorganising episodes in seasons that contradict available sources. I suspect that most of the problems that you're seeing with List of Rugrats episodesmay be as a result of his recent edits, [1] but I don't know enough about the series to know whether this is the case, but based on his edits to other articles I suspect it is. You might care to look at the pre-Redmy version, [2] and if that's OK, revert to it. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 12:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
When are you going to stop deleting entries in the list of MoC releases? The print catalogue has been available as a PDF file in the MoC site since long ago.
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Walt Disney Platinum Editions. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Disney Platinum Editions. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Your edits have been reverted - again. For one thing, your summaries did not make any sense. Second, the problem happens on your computer only. Please refrain from reverting again. 76.189.169.244 ( talk) 04:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Rob,
I agree that the fixed-width tables problem is inconvenient. I wanted to see what your change were to the page to see what I think about it, because you wanted to have some feedback. I didn't understand where to find the changes that you had made. Here's your original quote on the discussion page so that you know what I'm talking about:
"I see someone has added additional tables to the 30s page in an attempt to reduce table width. I don't think that that these duplicate tables are the way to go, with long, mostly empty rows, but how about the footnotes system? I've updated the first three entries this way - what does anyone think?"
Could you wikilink me to your changes so I know which of those three "entries" you were talking about? Sorry, I should know what you're talking about, but my common sense is running a little low this week. (Maybe I can't find them because they've been reverted, or...I don't know...)
Anyway, thanks.
98.202.38.225 (
talk)
21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Please note that I have found analysis on this subject in scholarly books and have added and cited some of this information in the article. My source searching has turned up quite a bit more beyond what I added and I therefore politely request that you reconsider. Thank you for your time and consideration! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 17:55, 29 December 2009 (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 | → | Archive 5 |