User talk:Woodensuperman/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Opinion needed

Can you comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Media_franchises#What_belongs_in_this_project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I also need your opinion here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please leave the articles alone

You don't know enough about the subject to be making merges. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see any evidence for consensus for these moves and merges. I have opened a section at the end of RM Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit"), the question being where is the majority agreement of editors for these edits? If these are purely unilateral controversial edits following your own views over the majority of other views in the RM you should consider self-reverting. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion said "no consensus" by the closing admin, please don't move it like there is a consensus saying "as per discussion" seriously, even Chinese people don't know what you are talking about with "surname meaning X" —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 10:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The closing admin said that there was no consensus to move to titles with Chinese characters and that another solution should be found. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Rob, could you please stop acting like an expert in a subject that you know nothing about? You've already betrayed your complete lack of necessary linguistic and cultural background in your undiscussed and incorrect move of Lí (黎) to Lí (surname meaning "dawn"). -Zanhe (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Li (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:U. S. Network Shows footer

I don't really see the point of orphaning Template:U. S. Network Shows footer unless there is some overhauling of the underlying templates. I think they are more informative to the reader linked by this template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Because that isn't how navboxes are supposed to work - we link to articles, not other navboxes. We shouldn't take the reader out of article space. --Rob Sinden (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In this instance, you are looking at it with blinders on. When they are serving to link templates that arguably could be merged. You can make the case you are making. In the case where the reader is better served by going to a template than no where and where there is no reason to propose merging the majority of the templates, a different consideration needs to be made. This is a WP:IAR situation in a sense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that they be merged. This is simply incorrect usage of navboxes. They do not provide links to external sites, neither do they provide links out of article space into template space. They provide links between existing articles, and anything that is included on the navbox should have the navbox transcluded. This means that by linking to other templates, the template should be transcluded on the other template, which is not possible. Only articles should be included in navboxes. I think the guidelines probably need to be changed to reflect this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If there is not guideline or policy confirming this already how do you know that consensus agrees with you.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The use of these kinds of footer templates breaks all the rules regarding inclusion and transclusion at WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAVBOXES. A reader expects that a link in a navbox takes them to another article, not out of article namespace and into template namespace, which is not part of the encyclopedia, but part of Wikipedia administration. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As I read WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAVBOXES, they are silent on interlinking templates unless you consider them external links.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Which is exactly why the guidelines need to be updated. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to believe that there is consensus to outlaw intertemplate links in navboxes?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes - as explained, the reader needs to stay in article space. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Says who? Isn't template space better than no information for the reader who is looking for information that is there?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A reader expects that a link in a navbox takes them to another article, not out of article namespace and into template namespace. The guidelines talk about easy navigation between articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A link that takes you to another template with links to all the articles that you want is providing easy navigation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't, because it takes you away from the articles, not to mention falling foul of the inclusion/transclusion rules. Read and digest the guidelines again. This is not what navboxes are intended for... --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You have not provided any guidelines that say what you think at this point. I am going to restore the Template:U. S. Network Shows footer to the places it was found before. You can either seek to revise policy or WP:TFD it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NAV: A navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles. Editing of a navigation template is done in a central place, the template page. The emphasis is mine, but navboxes are not articles. As you can see, the guidelines pretty much already show that they are intended only to link articles, and the template space is used for editing, they just could do with being more explicit. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Using such a long time, and if you want to remove, please get consensus.

Using such a long time, and if you want to remove, please get consensus.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

nitpicking

You've really got a talent for nitpicking. -Zanhe (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not nitpicking. That page should only be used where the original name was rendered in Chinese as 南山 - that's what you've been arguing the point of the page is for. If it translates back to Chinese in that way from an English rendering because it was named (in English) after a Chinese name, that's incidental. The vessel was always called Nanshan, never 南山. --Rob Sinden (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. This entry is so minor it's probably not worth arguing about. -Zanhe (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Templates deleted under false pretenses

You blanked a bunch of templates that were under nomination at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_13#Template:GuldbaggeAwardBestFilm_footer under the presumption that a delete closure was inevitable. The debate was closed as no consensus. However, once you blanked them, they were deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_20 in a routine closure. Now, Template:Cannes Film Festival Best Actress Award, Template:Cannes Film Festival Best Actor Award, Template:Golden Globe Award for Best Miniseries or Television Film and others seem inconseistent with the other templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No false pretences. The suggestion was that it was work that should just be carried out, that it was mostly procedural, without the need for discussions, except in cases where it wasn't obvious that a merge was needed. The reason some are out of place with others is due to the fact that there are an awful lot to do. I'm working on them when I find them, but I'm not seeking them out. Think I already said that. -Rob Sinden (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Title discussion

Hi. I noticed you're name at the talk page for WP:Article titles and was wondering if you could comment at this discussion regarding a website's trademarked stylization. Dan56 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:The Lodger vs Template:Jack the Ripper media

Do not redirect. The latter template is likely to be a huge template when I am done. It will serve a different purpose than the focussed one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Who are you to dictate "do not redirect"? Template:The Lodger is made completely redundant by Template:Jack the Ripper media as the latter contains all the links included in the first. --Rob Sinden (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:CSD#T3. --Rob Sinden (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

At the very least you should wait until I have constructed the template. It is likely to have several dozen links and be burdensome to people who are interested in the more focused Lodger topic. Yes all the links are duplicated, but the purpose of presenting a focused topic is not.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, this isn't how things work. If all the links are included in the larger navbox, then you'll end up with two navboxes on each page, both containing the same links as the smaller navbox, thus rendering the smaller navbox irrelevant and redundant. --Rob Sinden (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Andrzej Żuławski

Regarding Template:Andrzej Żuławski: I know (and support) that navboxes shouldn't show red links. That's why that template uses <noinclude>...</noinclude> and an accompanying explanation. This method will not show red links in the template's transclusions, thus satisfying WP:NAVBOX. It provides a convenient mechanism to 1) arrive at common names for future articles; 2) provide a complete list of the director's œuvre, thus satisfying WP:REDYES; 3) simplify the correct chronological addition of articles when they get written. Hiding the missing titles in HTML comments achieves only #3. I suggest to restore the version with the complete list. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For this - I couldn't find that template *d'oh* Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP, in a discussion you participated. Note there was a discussion of PDAB at WT:D the last weeks (everything is explained in the RFC). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

2009, 2010, or 2011?

Please revisit THIS discussion. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Template merges

You should probably do all the Emmy ones now while they are in season and people will be looking at the pages more closely.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 11:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks - will have a look... --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

chainsaw

Fine, you don't think it should be in the intro. And fine, you feel so strongly about it that you're willing to click the undo button twice. Meanwhile, I'm trying to improve the information quality of Wikipedia.

If you can't stand that info being in the intro, move it out of the intro. Or open a discussion on the Talk page. Or leave a message on my Talk page saying what you think could be improved in my edit.

But please don't just click revert, revert. We need to grow the editing community. That sort of attitude doesn't drive me away (I'm not saying that's your intention). I've been here ten years and I've a thick skin. But others would find your behaviour antisocial and they might leave or be less enthusiastic about contributing to Wikipedia. Gronky (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Attempt at video game template merger

Those templates were already split off from a single template in 2009 after an extensive discussion to establish consensus and the current format (including an RFC at the WikiProject Video Games), which resulted in the current format. You're welcome to start up a new discussion and RFC at the project, but any sweeping changes like this are going to require a new consensus generated. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

PG-13 category

Hey dude I don't freaking criticize your edits and say "its poorly worded". User:TreCoolGuy

"The F-Bomb" is a colloquialism. You should have gone with use the word "fuck". But it isn't a defining characteristic of a film anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Batman vs.Superman

Hi Robsinden! FYI - Batman vs. Superman was an article at the time I added the links to the navbox templates. It was changed to a redirect afterwards. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - I thought that was probably the case. That's the sad thing with WP:GNOMEing - no sooner have you tidied up, something else has changed! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay so let me get this straight...

Images of box sets violate copyright now? Would it be any different if a picture of a box set was taken and uploaded on Wikipedia by a user? Would that classify as a free file? I honestly fail to see the issue here.--DesignDeath (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been explained to you on your talk page, but you seem to be ignoring the warnings. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing at all has been explained on my talk page. I understand the non-free policy, but I don't understand what the issue is with those files specifically. These overly strict rules are damaging the site (imo) and making articles look like walls of text. There can't be a non-free replacement for almost any of the files.--DesignDeath (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Declined speedy

With respects Rob, I have declined your speedy on Pocket Gangsters. While it is an WP:UGLY article, sources are available and any sense of advert is addressable. See its talk page. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I just tagged the author's talk page to let him know I am going to return it to him for further work. Hopefully the work I did cleaning it up will show him the way. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Robsinden. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage

Hi there,

I noticed that, in this diff, you deleted the section on Wikipedia coverage from the Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage article. I encourage you to discuss this issue further on the talk page page as some editors may disagree with its removal. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I opened up a survey at Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage#Survey on Wikipedia section. Please do share your thoughts there. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not make any more reverts. You need to achieve a clear consensus before making such substantive changes. While discussion in progress, please do not make major changes to the article. This may be perceived as edit warring. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus would need to be for inclusion, not against it, as it goes against the guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 20:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

purging cache of footer templates

to help the admin see that these footer templates are no longer used, you can perform a 'null edit' on each article shown in 'what links here'. basically, you just open up the article, do nothing, then save the article, which will clear it from the list. I have been doing this for you on the ones that I see after seeing an admin reject your CSD since it did not look like the template was unused. but, I don't have time to do all of them. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Director navboxes

Two people doesn't make a consensus. There should have been a discussion with others before you started fucking around the templates.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not undoing anything. Yes a discussion at the film project would be nice.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You're ridiculous.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks

That redirect will just be there for a month - an argument was made its not a good redirect so I wanted to see how many ppl actually click on it daily.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Father Ted sitcom ref

Hi, I see you removed the ref, I was suprised it hadnt happened previous! Its a ref for the authors talking about thier ideas, I added it as it shows they believe it to be an Irish sitcom, but the lead has been edit warred to bits lately, I am surprised it lasted this long. Shows that not many read the refs! Best leave it out for now anyhow. Murry1975 (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the lead explains that it was made by a British production company further down, so I think that gets rid of any "controversy". Still, I see the infobox had been changed again - thanks for changing it back. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Criterion is one source.

The vast majority of English-language sources call it Le Cercle Rouge. Film Fan 14:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:NCCAPS#Capitalization of expressions borrowed from other languages in conjunction with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related)#Works of art. Given the Criterion and other sources,[1][2][3] I think using the French capitalisation could be justified. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That article is about books, paintings, etc. NCF is about films. You have shown three sources -- doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of sources use Le Cercle Rouge, and even the Criterion cover clearly shows Le Cercle Rouge. By the way, if we were going by the French works of art thing, it would be Le Cercle rouge, not Le cercle rouge like your sources suggest. Film Fan 14:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Films are works of art, just like books, so the same rules apply. WP:NCF#Foreign-language films seems to advocate usage of the original capitalisation. The French seem to be using both, as it happens.[4] Maybe best to leave where it is for now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention films. And the rule that you use the title most common in the English-speaking world also applies, and is perhaps more relevant. It's a capital C for Cercle either way. French Wikipedia uses Cercle. Film Fan 14:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I've put it back to how it was before you or I started editing it. Would suggest that any move / change of capitalisation should be discussed properly. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Les enfants terribles (film)

Hello Robsinden. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Les enfants terribles (film), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related)#Works of art, cited at WP:NCCAPS. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Death Note question". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 17:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)

To be fair to our readers, I think a temporary redirect to either J.K. Rowling or the article on the 2001 book "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" by that author (and where this adaptation is already written about), is a valid consideration. The arguments about how the film topic might become supremely notable have a bit of merit, but I think it logical that we send readers for now to where it makes sense under policy, guideline and essay to keep readers informed. What'cha think? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hammersmith Apollo

Fair enough we can leave the page as Hammersmith Apollo - it is a more recognisable name. But can we please put in the new corporate logo for the Apollo? As the old one you have restored to the page is no longer in use and I have been requested to remove it by both parties in ownership of the Eventim Apollo. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adfrench41 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The old logo is in the "History" section, so it does not imply that it is the current logo. The more appropriate place for the new logo would be in the infobox, but I think this is probably better served by the photo. But we have a problem: You say that you "have been requested to remove it by both parties in ownership of the Eventim Apollo". This shows a clear WP:COI, and I'd advise you against editing articles related to Eventim for this reason. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That said, the logo looked out of place where it was, so as it's defunct, I've removed it anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this

I was going to do the same thing once the AFD was closed, but you beat me to it . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tuva Novotny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Trivia sections

I'm very much hoping it won't come to this, but if the editor in question persists in their feeling that the section should be named Trivia and is doing it across multiple articles then an ANI case may be warranted. Hopefully we can talk them down on Soylent Green and it won't be an issue.

Development of Jurassic World

Could you have a look at Development of Jurassic World. I've seen you active in similar cases. I raised the issue of WP:NFF there, but the editors involved think it doesn't apply. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Woodensuperman. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 17:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Avoid canvassing

Hey there Robsinden. It's totally fine to notify relevant WikiProjects about ongoing discussions, as with your recent interest in Template:Alfred Hitchcock, but be sure to word the notice neutrally, so as to avoid any semblance of canvassing (see "Campaigning" on that page). Ibadibam (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Coronation Street characters

Hi, WP:Existing doesn't say anything about list entries. I think you're referring to "Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template", which is in a different section. However, I understand that List of Coronation Street characters performs the same function, and the template is just for articles, not sections within the same articles, and all the articles they linked to are included in the "lists of characters" part of the template. It's just that it's always been the way it was (not a good excuse) and people will wonder where certain characters currently appearing in the show are (and will probably try to re-insert them). Just letting you know that I now understand, but also my reasons for the original revert. There are other templates that do this. –anemoneprojectors– 16:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:The Rolling Stones albums

A tag has been placed on Template:The Rolling Stones albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the problem. I see what happened - the main RS template was duplicated by this IP account edit: [5], and that had never been reverted. I've restored the main template now. Having a distinct album template makes sense as a stand alone - same as the singles and the videos templates, as this gives more flexible functionality. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

double redirects

it would be great if you could fix the double redirects (e.g., the redirects to the templates you redirect). I just fixed these. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Woodensuperman. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 16:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer Lawrence‎

If you want to edit war, go ahead and keep reverting: everyone else is managing to discuss it like adults on the talk page. Perhaps you ought to try that out instead of edit warring? - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Well done for your edit warring. Now grow up and join in the conversation and stop being such a WP:DICK. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. The irony here, is that you're the one not following WP:BRD. The BOLD move was the removal of the infobox, so it should remain in the stable state (with the infobox) while the discussion takes place. That's how WP:BRD works. Any edit warring is yours. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree, quite ironic [6]. I did not know article talk pages were where discussions about user conduct took place, instead of on user talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of low-budget zombie films may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

appology

Hello Robsiden, I'm Andy'sedits, in case my signature goes wrong. I'm sorry you thougth I disregarded your comment and instructions you left on my talk page. I saw your post about signatures, and I already had one from another person. I forgot to comment there about makign hte so that was why I removed yours without coming here to mention it. I haven't worked out the signature with the 'talk' & auto link,. I read in instructions to do the four ~ as the signature or use the pencil icon. I know htere is no excuse, but I can only think the reason was becuse I left a space between last . and putting the signature. I am a fan of Zombie films, and take the topic seriously, I would only make contribution comment knowing there is relaible propper source to back it up. would make sure I'd qualify if something is my personal opinion only. Hope you excuse the tardiness of my reply.--Andys'edtits 12:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andys'edtits (talk • contribs) Signature problem now fixed after teahouse assitance. All in settings!--Andys'edtits (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please cease adding AfDs

As has been already said, you need an RfC if you want to delete/merge all these Chinese surnames. Doing it piecemeal through AfD (a) isn't going to work because AFD is based on notability, including non-English sources, (b) is treading a fine line heading towards disruptive and WP:POINTY - I will only comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Surname (郦). Please intitate a RFC. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We pretty much had consensus before, except for some systemic bias, which you continually have failed to see, yet the discussion was never closed. Hopefully these deletion discussions will get things moving in the right direction. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"We pretty much had consensus before" even if it was true " pretty much" is not consensus. I counted 5 for merge and 5 against, whether that count is right or wrong, it evidently isn't consensus. What do you mean by "systemic bias"? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just lost five minutes work and source because of an edit conflict caused by you hovering over the article adding a "who" ... do you not have other areas of the encyclopedia to disrupt? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologise that my crystal ball isn't working today. Don't you get a notification page when you have an edit conflict? This is hardly my fault. Stop being so odious. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The basic element of disruption and harassment aside, a notification is of limited use to an editor trying to work with connectivity problems. It is not good practice to hover over an article immediately adding tags when someone is evidently working on adding material. It does not need a crystal ball to see that someone is working. Let me remind you all you have done to this article is blank it, AfD it, and delete things. When you see an editor who adds a print source, translates it, and improves the article, that is not an invitation for you to jump in with a tag half way through. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your connectivity problems are not my fault! You had added something, it seemed like you had finished. How was I supposed to know that you would add something else. But whether that is or isn't the case, Wikipedia tells you when you have an edit conflict. If you did not see this because of your connection, blame your ISP, not me! Seriously, despite your experience, you need to work on your attitude. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

How editors know that other editors are working on articles is by looking at the time information on the edit summary. If an editor sees another editor, particularly one he/she knows is experienced in the topic area, adding (+1,498)‎ almost doubling an article to (3,566 bytes) at 12:58, it is common courtesy to give that editor breathing space to continue before tagging at 13:05. Generally speaking edits such as tagging, deleting, templating, blanking and similar contributions are easy to do quickly, while wordsmithing, proofing, sourcing, adding content, and in this case also translating a Chinese source is not quick. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Please use the {{in use}} template for this. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Edit conflicts happen all the time. Deal with it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflicts do happen on discussion pages yes, but I normally add content to articles without someone adding tags at a brief interval. This is the first experience of this kind for many months, probably a year or more. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems you've been lucky then. You still seem to think it's my fault! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A user with the experience of User:In ictu oculi is bound to have suffered hundreds of edit conflicts. Anyway, he should use the proper templates before becoming too sniffy and upset about the fact that we should all be able to predict his editing patterns. Job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who The Rambling Man is or why he is watching your Talk page, but to have another editor appear on your Talk page commenting and calling me a liar is disturbing. I said "Edit conflicts do happen on discussion pages yes, but I normally add content to articles without someone adding tags at a brief interval. This is the first experience of this kind for many months, probably a year or more." and what I said was and is the case. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to get over your sense of self-importance. You made an edit that had a WP:WEASEL word, I tagged it as such. That an edit conflict happened and you lost subsequent work due to your poor internet connection is just tough shit. End of story. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I have over 8,000 pages on my watch list. This is just one of them. Now, if you're upset about edit conflicts, use the appropriate templates. If you have a crap internet connection, don't come crying to anyone else about it. That's your problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ask at IP I would guess Esperanto

Dear Rob,

I will give you the fix up later but you sent a message to User talk:95.90.118.201 who I have just spent four weeks deleting incorrect comments about Esperanto across articles, particularly Hungarian ones, and had (this is a redlink´Grin Report) deleted after PROD and AfD with lots of personal abuse. I deliberately stayed away. My notably sourced article at Beethoven's liver meanwhile was on the history log as POINTy which it was but the point is here is how you can write a stub reliably sourced in two minutes if you know how, and odd how mine stands in its own right but this is how you have a reliably sourced, notable article and the only PUSHPOV is to push the point of N, RS, V. We might not like that but we come here or we don't which is why I stayed away cos I couldn't be bothered with him.

I presume you removed a reference to Esperanto which he is always pushing, occasionally under other IPs. He has met his match in me because I and my wife User:Monkap have both studied it at university many years ago and it is useful in the study of lingustics (she being native in finno ugric and me in English) but to pretend it is used in real life is a nonsense. He put in that it is an offical langage in Hungary, which is not true, it is taught on linguistics courses and in the narrowesst sense of the word it is official in that you get one mark on your course for having studied it for three months. I pointed out that English is not an official language in England.

I am just warning you cos he is not exactly a troll but a pushpov. In the AfD, it says so called english si trew you say pushpov. Well pushpov is not English it is Wikipedia jargon. argot in french. I only speak jargon in Hungarian but I don't know the word for it. Si Trew (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Laura Whitmore

I would prefer the description "Irish presenter on british television" because she has never presented any programmes on any Irish stations. 80.111.172.25 (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused about the change in birthplace. Perhaps I should just keep out of this. James^x12345 17:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving pages during AfD discussions

Hello, you recently moved a page that was at AfD ([Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Clover - Film]); when the discussion was closed as delete, the closing administrator ended up not deleting the actual article but instead the pagemove redirect. While the move was correct, could you either 1) refrain from performing pagemoves while the article is at AfD or 2) put a clear note on the discussion page that you moved it? (See WP:NOMOVE, as well.) Cheers, Ansh666 04:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Li (surname) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 1 《风俗通》记载: "齐厉公之后,汉有魏郡太守、义阳侯厉温。" 2 《古今姓氏书辨证》记载: "厉国在义阳县北之厉乡,以国为 ... 【楹联】 1 绩茂循良,勋铭带砺(宋厉汪)。 2 威弭郡盗(唐厉文才〉,名重文坛(清厉鹗)。"</ref>
• Sciences Publishing House 2001 Page 176 "他的子孙以他的官名宰为姓,奉宰邴郦姓溯源主要是以国名为姓。夏禹时封黄帝的子孙于郦,郦古音历,一音尺,即古菊潭县(在今河南内乡县东北〕,虽是一个小诸侯国,却立国一千余年,直到春秋时被晋灭掉。" [Yu's sons took the name Zai from his official name, while

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

John Wayne films

Moved to Talk:John Wayne filmography § Table formatting

 – Rob Sinden (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

The MOS supersedes personal opinions. Please read WP:DTT before trying to undo months of hard work to sloppy 90s standards, and show a little respect for WP:WAI. Separate tables are better for navigation, one lengthy table is ugly and less accessible, especially for that many rows. Your opinions in the edit summary are purely subjective, whereas the MOS is a tried and tested set of standards. The split tables format has been there for over a year, without disruption – no need for you to start now. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC) As far as the MOS goes, please advise where at WP:FILMOGRAPHY it says to break the table down into each year, and add useless columns regarding co-stars. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Note the title "Project style recommendations" – recommendations don't exceed MOS, they merely give direction. WAI are designed to make lengthy tables easier to read, few actors have their complete filmography on Wiki, they are usually short selected filmographies. Also, WikiProjects don't own articles, custom project MOS are not replacements for wiki MOS or WAI. I don't use WP:FILMOGRAPHY because wikiprojects aren't boss here, and neither are you. Quit invoking your personal opinions. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC) I think you have WP:OWNership issues here, and have asked the relevant project for opinions. The fact remains that splitting into years is pretty useless, and makes the article over 50% larger than it needs to be. You are not "boss" here either. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC) I think you're breaking WP:AGF and have a stick up your arse. WP:WAI is a useless requirement? I don't think so... you are however. Enjoy your canvassing. 14:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC) How does showing as a single table break WP:WAI? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Having the information as a single table, such as Spencer Tracy filmography is a far more useful way of presenting the information than the sprawling mess we have currently. Perhaps you'd like to make your concerns known at the project talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Because it's 176 f-king rows long and 9 columns wide, and harder for a reader so get the required rows when it's all clumped together in your 90s-fashioned "clump" of mud. In separate tables its navigational. That is what WAI is designed to do.. make things easier to navigate. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC) So you'd rather it was accessible to screen readers than humans? I appreciate the accessibility concerns, but the information is useless to anyone like this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Anyone? Did you ask "everyone" to determine that, or did you pull that rabbit out of a hat? I think I smell WP:IJDLI, rather than a sensible argument. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Column_headers:_good_example suggests breaking things into separate tables, this is where the current design originated. WP:FILMOGRAPHY doesn't consider even WAI standards, and does not supersede the overall MOS. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Umm - that example is for "avoiding column headers in the middle of the table" - not something that is an issue here. Nothing to do with the length of the table, so I'm not sure why you decided the splits were necessary. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC) "So you'd rather it was accessible to screen readers than humans?" – name me one unimpaired human who can't navigate the page, besides yourself? Over 600 people hit this pager PER DAY: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/John_Wayne_filmography and in a whole year, you're the first to complain. Bureaucratic, that's what you are – people like me strive to create accessible but visually impressive articles, and people like you bring sledgehammers to them and turn them into Lego, all grey and bland with no appeal, thus reducing the audience's interest. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Our purpose isn't to make things pretty, but to present the information in the most useful way - this seems to be the only filmography to adopt this method, and it jars. Were the table sortable, we could see all the films directed by Don Siegel or John Ford (for example), or all the films he made for RKO grouped together. If we reduce this to a single table, perhaps you'd like to do the necessary cleanup that you seem to think is missing from the plain-form table. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Umm, when the articles were merged the tables were top-headed and would have been split horizontally. See https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=John_Wayne_filmography_%281926%E2%80%931940%29&oldid=516790216 for how it did look. So yes, the link is relevant. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Fair enough - I can see the logic as to how it happened, but the information is still better presented in a single table. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Sure, and the UK is better in the EU, if you enjoy a dull life without distinction. In short, I disagree.. and as no one else has sought reason to complain in over a year since the merge, I think you're mistaken. WP:IAR when the going is good, and until you decided do drive a steam roller into the square, the article was 100% free of bad edits. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Okay, it's clear we're not going to find a compromise between the two of us - let's see what the relevant project think. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC) I've seen it, I'm not partaking in it – far as I'm concerned, everything is good and has been for 13 months; I'll just wait and see if you either get sufficient consensus to do otherwise or form an irksome WP:RANDY in your favour. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Looking for something similar, I had a look at Spencer Tracy filmography and Christopher Lee filmography. Other than the rowspan (which I purposely avoided when merging these tables), I fail to see how anything like this can break a screen reader. The plain and simple approach reduces the page load time dramatically. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Rowspanning doesn't "break" anything – once you begin sorting the spanned rows split into single cells. The page load time isn't slow, as there are hardly any images and the tables are not complex because there is no nesting and some widths are fixed. That's a fairly desperate excuse.. there are far bigger and bulkier tables on Wiki which are slower yet survive scrutiny: List of castles in England – try that for "size". Note also, it has a custom TOC, a "Natural TOC" isn't a requirement, else they wouldn't give us means to create them, again it was degrading the content to the basics; far removed even from FL. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC) I reverted to a "natural" TOC after merging the tables, as there were no longer all the section breaks for each year. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Okay, great. FYI I have no issue with removing "leading lady" columns, I didn't add them in the first place, I just never took time to remove them either. It's more finicky than productive, so it's on your clock. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC) I've told you once already, WP:Filmography does not take priority over WP:MOS, as WikiProjects custom MOS are only meant to support supplement formats, not replace them. I find it pretentious that you think otherwise. I will also note that we are BOTH likely to have breached WP:3RR by now. I suggest you run along to your Wikiproject and await the conclusion of the discussion you started, as you are jumping the gun by attempting to enforce standards that contravene MOS, reducing the article in question to war editing over lesser-MOS layouts. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 16:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC) How is removing the bolding and centering of the first column against the MOS? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Correct table captions shows a filmography uncentered and unbolded! Please demonstrate that the centering and bolding is not just your personal preference. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC) The section you gave is about the caption not the content. I highly doubt they created a full representation of the MOS when the focus is on the caption. Also, there are hundreds of tables in Wiki, many of which use bolding and centering for the primary column. It's a matter of "first come, first served", similar to WP:ENGVAR – if a table is created by an initial editor in a certain way that is not contrary to MOS, there is no good reason for other editors to impose basic styles on it. The examples you are giving don't state in the prose around them "X must not be bold, Y must not be centered" – you are simply using rhetoric to create a false illusion that all tables must be a facsimile of that particular example, which you have cherry-picked. Again, MOS:TABLES is father to WP:FILMOGRAPHY and it does not enforce the draconian practices which you follow. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 16:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Again, per MOS:TABLES, the filmography example table shows the film title unbolded and left justified. Now, I appreciate that this is not a hard-and-fast rule, but generally, all the examples in the MOS for filmographies are like this, and to my point of view, it's certainly a more pleasing format. Why should we not follow all of these examples? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC) And, regarding the split of the table into year-by-year sections is against MOS:TABLES also "Splitting lists and tables per summary style is advised against". --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC) "This page discusses when and how tables should be used on Wikipedia." – the example on MOS:TABLES is of a table vs a list and how the data can be better presented; the page pays no mind to any form of styling, only how a table can be used in a list's place. You also need to learn what "summary style" actually pertains to: It involves creating a short summary in a main article and then placing the full topic of that summary on a separate page. i.e. John Wayne filmography for 1928; John Wayne filmography for 1929; 1930, and so forth. One page embodies an entire filmography, it does not link to several summarised per year. So you're wrong there. The term "pleasing format" is a subjective one, I for one don't like grey walls of films treated like data on non-scientific articles, when the genre is entertainment. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 16:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC) However, the styling here seems unique to these particular filmography tables. WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, for the sake of consistency, there's no reason not to go down the left-aligned, unadorned text route. It's also the only filmography table I've seen that splits year-by-year. What makes this one any different? However you want to interpret MOS:TABLES, a single, simple, non-aligned and unadorned table is still the best way to present the information. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regardless of alignment, the cells still contain English words, and your average reader has no trouble reading the content of a cell because it is self-contained, alignment would only make it had to follow if there were no cell boundaries to unconsciously guide our eyes to the words. Left-alignment does nothing special, in fact it just clumps the content to the left making the appearance rigid. These basic styles have been around since the internet began, they're not unusual to anyone. It's not a matter of consistency, but presentation. The data is presentable without doing anything controversial. There is nothing inherently wrong with centering or bold. In essence, you're creating a storm in a teacup which reeks of WP:IJDLI. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 17:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Die Hard (film series)

I know about WP:FILMRATING, but many readers who are unfamiliar with the Die Hard series would want to know about the ratings of those films since the fourth one, Live Free or Die Hard, was PG-13 while the others are R. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant. These are not defining characteristics of the film, and put a US bias on the films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A belated kitten for you

Wikimedes has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

I was going to give you and In ictu oculi kittens after your first exchange at the latest RfC and got sidetracked. In ictu oculi still looks like he needs one, so here’s one for you too. (How and why would one feed a virtual kitten 3 times a day?)--Wikimedes (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but to be honest, I've walked away from that issue now, due to a cabal of editors forcing their view through against all policies and guidelines. It's situations like this that make me wonder why I bother. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GA Thanks

This user has contributed to Man of Steel (film) good articles on Wikipedia.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Man of Steel (film), which recently was promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

See WP:BRD and use the talk page: do not just revert. Your edit was poor and against the consensus on the article, which was why it was reverted initially. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are involved in an edit war. Stop. Go to the talk page and DISCUSS. On the way there, you may wish to stop by WP:BRD and brush up on things. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who's ignoring WP:BRD. The content was inexplicably removed, I am going through the "revert" part of the cycle. You need to discuss. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Carry On films crew members

Category:Carry On films crew members, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

False deletion edit summaries, removal of valid template

Your deletions at Gina Torres, Nathan Fillion, Alan Tudyk, Morena Baccarin, Adam Baldwin, Jewel Staite, Sean Maher, Summer Glau, and Ron Glass have all been reverted by me and another editor, due to false edit summaries and false deletion reasons. Care to explain yourself here, so there's just one central discussion?

• There's no such thing as "no actors in infoboxes" anywhere.
• There's no such claim in WP:BIDIRECTIONAL as "no actors in navboxes".

--Lexein (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries as to why actors are not included in navboxes. The WP:BIDIRECTIONAL was a reference to the fact that with the actors removed from the navbox, the navbox then does not belong on the page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Rob Sinden be careful, going to Nymf page asking them to come and help out in the discussion is getting very close to WP:CANVASS as well as WP:Meat puppetry Both of which could get you a ban — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarty72 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hardly. The user was already involved in the issue per this and this edit. I was pointing them to the centralised discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally, centralized, at my insistence, you're welcome. I'm willing to let the ping of User talk:Nymf as it was phrased neutrally. Odd, though, that the user appears not to be on the WikiProject member list. I would have supposed they would be more greatly interested in this issue. --Lexein (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I already tried to centralise it where it started - YOUR talk page. You guys were leaving messages all over the place, except for maybe where it should have been centralised - the navbox talk page! That the user is not a member of the project, but is aware of the longstanding consensus says something, doesn't it? --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nathan Fillion. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please arrive on one location for your discussion, refrain from any further reverting and get this matter resolved. Your slow edit warring is disrupting this article and all the other Firefly-related articles where it's taking place. --Drmargi (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Coincidentally

I see your editcount odometer just clicked over to 20,000. Got a screenshot. --Lexein (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Well spotted. I thought I was well off the next tutnum level! --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, oops, that count includes deleted edits. I don't really know whether to count deleted edits for my badge or not. Snapshot is File:Robsinden editcount 20000 inclusive.jpg. --Lexein (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to count them or not - still I don't think it's too much of a fraud - I'm not that far off either way! Whilst we are embroiled in a bit of a heated discussion elsewhere, it heartens me that you bothered to let me know of this count. Thanks again  :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I do scrap, but I'm not a dick. --Lexein (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 5 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Lonely Herdsman page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Belated item

Hello RS. When your discussion about actors in navboxes came up I couldn't for, the life of me, remember where the past discussions were. Well, as happens around here, I stumbled across it today while looking for something else. So the 2nd item here Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries might be what you are looking for. Other discussion might have supplanted this one but I cannot remember that happening. Another flaw with the A&F wikiproject is that we tend to discuss things but the consensus doesn't always get written into the MoS. I hope this is of help and my apologies if it isn't. MarnetteD | Talk 02:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD, I found that link, but I am being challenged on its implementation with regard to Template:Firefly. Would you like to comment on the talk page - we need some other views there. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prehysteria!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Film award templates

Can you explain why did you merge some of the film award templates to a single navbox?--Earthh (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - based on a discussion a while back. It's in an archive - I'll see if I can find it! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

There you go, Earthh: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 13#Template:GuldbaggeAwardBestFilm footer. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see any kind of consensus at that discussion. Template:André Cavens Award is not even mentioned and now it is really a mess.--Earthh (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The "consensus" was that the decade splits were arbitrary and unnecessary. It was a mess before with three templates when one would do. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's face it, THIS is useless as a navigational aid. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see "Since it seems like there could be consensus" as a solid consensus. "I would suggest further discussion of merging the per-decade templates". While the template you linked could be merged with the 1981–2000 period, I would use the original per-decade templates. Regards, Earthh (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes are there to aid navigation. How does having separate templates achieve this? What is the justification for the split? --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That's the point, separate templates aid navigation. In Template:André Cavens Award there are more than sixty entries and so it comes out very difficult to read and to navigate.--Earthh (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

How does navigating through two additional navboxes aid navigation, when one can do the job just as well? It's not that large - there are much larger ones out there, so there is no justification to split. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a large template, with film title and people, and so very difficult to read. That's why all film award footers here still exist.--Earthh (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's much more difficult to read when you have to navigate between three separate pages. And those templates are the ones that still exist because the templates haven't been merged yet (most of them), or they really are too large for one navbox (the ensemble cast type navboxes, which have their own issues). Would it satisfy you if a single navbox was put in sections for clarity? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just divided the template in three sections. I think it's fine now. Thank you for your patience.--Earthh (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mic Neumann

Great find, raised this at COIN. That clearly confirms my suspicions that there was promotional editing going on at Ace Hotel and Dubtitle (as well as the others, of course). Ace Hotel's article could be a brochure for them. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I instigated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:Squeezdot for the IP at about the same time. I've also CSDed Michael Mic Neumann under WP:CSD#G4. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Squeezdot and came here to thank you, and found the above. All edits by the IP at least since August 28 2010 are block evasion, anyone can revert them. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's possible 209.133.117.5 (talk · contribs) is the same person. Did a lot of work on an article the Neumann IP created, both are New York City IPs. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Also see this old ANI report.[7] Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, all of this seems to have been going on a long time now, always with the same issues, and the same articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And he kept it up at Nylon (magazine) (see Talk). Neumann!--Lexein (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

So he did. Thanks, I've replied to you there. Rob, you haven't commented yet at WP:COIN, I hope you will. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Doug, have done this now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent move

Moved to Talk:Remember Not, Lord, Our Offences § Capitalisation of title

 – More appropriate. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

You recently renamed Remember not, Lord, our offences to Remember Not, Lord, Our Offences. Sorry, but every catalogue of Purcell's works does not use such capitalisation, the source text does not, and in general, Anglican choral anthems do not follow this rule. Please review.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Please see WP:NCCAPS in conjunction with MOS:CT which dictates the use of capitals when it comes to composition titles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Please also see Category:Compositions by Henry Purcell, where all Purcell's works are capitalised according to WP:NCCAPS and our MoS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC) I'm familiar with the policies you cited, irregardless they are not capitalised in the catalogues of musicologists who do this shit for a living Policy can be wrong from time to time...wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia was. Screw what reliable sources prepared by experts do because MOS (a mere guideline) says to do it differently. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC) If you regard the MoS as "a mere guideline", then take into account WP:TITLEFORMAT which is policy. As far as "musicologists" and "experts" go, please see WP:Specialist style fallacy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC) I don't regard MOS as a mere guideline...it advertises itself as a "guideline." Your essay is just further proof that Wikipedia enjoys putting up signs saying "we're a bunch of happy 12-year olds...experts not welcome" I guess the works of musicologists (including the one cited in the very first line of the article), the title as printed on almost every score since it was composed, its listing in the catalogues and manuscript collections where it was included, the source text, and anything else that points to the original format for the title doesn't apply because MOS says "hey, capitalise" the title despite all else. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. Double down on wrong. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC) English language usage and capitalisation conventions have changed a lot since 1679. Using the original format is "wrong". Do you think we should format Measure for Measure as "MEASVRE, For Meaſure", because that's how the First Folio has it? --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC) The only score I've seen with it capitalized is the one on IMSLP. I'm including a lot of 19th/20th/21st century scores. And Zimmermann's catalogue was done about 50 years ago. Open any BCP, look at the litany, the text isn't capitalised. MOS is wrong on this one.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC) The Chicago Manual of Style, which is what our MOS is largely based on, has this to say: Compiling a bibliography raises questions of how much editing may be done to the title of a printed work in applying rules of style. Because capitalization, punctuation, and the use of italics on a title page are generally matters determined by the publisher rather than the author, scholars agree that these may be changed within limits, but that the author's spelling must not be altered. — CMS-13, §16.31: "Titles" --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC) And I've reverted your move - it didn't even fall in line with your own reasoning, as you had capitalised "Offences", which no source does. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Please could you also demonstrate a single policy or guideline which supports your view. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC) I don't care who's right but both of you must stop move-warring. A full discussion at WP:RM is needed. It was unwise of you, ColonelHenry, to get the page moved back on the basis that it was uncontroversial - it clearly was. It was unwise of you, Robsinden, to move it back again instead of using the proper channels for discussing disputed moves. BencherliteTalk 12:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A Boy was Born

Re: [8]

So it seems to you. Define dismay (a word that I don't know). The image of the baby was criticised by Bencherlite as not relevant to the article, I acted on that. The title page of the score which the composer dedicated to his own father seems more relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

ps: Define "correct". A correct name cannot be found by consensus, it simply is correct. An article can have only one name. That name can be found by consensus. If there are different names for the topic, why not show them? I would like especially to see with due weight the name chosen by the creator of the music which happens to be the preference of the creators of the article, the style in more than 90% of the sources used for the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi Robsinden, I was asked to comment about the reverting at A Boy Was Born and elsewhere. I'm not familiar with all the arguments, but the way forward is to discuss on talk, or start an RfC if no consensus can be found. Continuing to revert, especially when you're changing a style preference, is not a good idea. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Table changes

Your opinion is requested at Talk:List of original programs distributed by Netflix#Massive reverts without explanation. --Lexein (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10