BigGator5
Welcome!
Don't be a dick. My talk page, my rules.
Meetup edit
Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Venture Bros. Episode Articles edit
Please join the discussion on the talk pages, and desist in replacing unsourced speculation and original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not until you agree to leave the articles alone and I will join them. -BigGator5 07:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- The burden of sourcing, as always, rests on those who would include claims in an article. Where are your sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you even care?? -BigGator5 07:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because I'm not fond of fannish walled gardens being set up where encyclopedic articles could be written. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you even care?? -BigGator5 07:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- The burden of sourcing, as always, rests on those who would include claims in an article. Where are your sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- And they are/were encyclopedic info that you keep deleting. They hold connections to other episodes and pop-culture infomation written to enhance enjoyment of watching the episode. You seem to be the only person who seems to have a problem with the info provided in the articles. -BigGator5 07:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're describing an annotation or a watcher's guide. That's useful, but it's different from an encyclopedia article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- How so? Isn't a plot summmary just an annotation? It's not sourced and there is no way source such martial. Why is pop-culture and episode connections any different? -BigGator5 07:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- A plot summary is a concise summary of the plot, rather than randomly-chosen, cherry-picked, mostly-speculative "references". It's given leeway on sourcing because it's necessary and uncontroversial when it reflects the form of the work. Evaluative claims (such as "X is a reference to Y") are different, and need sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- You still have yet to answer my question, why do you care so much? (And dude, this is my talk page. My rules.) -BigGator5 07:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you care so much? Why does it matter? WP:V doesn't go away in any event. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- You still have yet to answer my question, why do you care so much? (And dude, this is my talk page. My rules.) -BigGator5 07:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- A plot summary is a concise summary of the plot, rather than randomly-chosen, cherry-picked, mostly-speculative "references". It's given leeway on sourcing because it's necessary and uncontroversial when it reflects the form of the work. Evaluative claims (such as "X is a reference to Y") are different, and need sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- How so? Isn't a plot summmary just an annotation? It's not sourced and there is no way source such martial. Why is pop-culture and episode connections any different? -BigGator5 07:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're describing an annotation or a watcher's guide. That's useful, but it's different from an encyclopedia article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- And they are/were encyclopedic info that you keep deleting. They hold connections to other episodes and pop-culture infomation written to enhance enjoyment of watching the episode. You seem to be the only person who seems to have a problem with the info provided in the articles. -BigGator5 07:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Without knowing the full scale of the situation, I'm more inclined to agree with A Man In Bl♟ck, since we are trying to write an encyclopedia, rather than fan/fiction guides. It's hard to distinguish between them sometimes, since some fiction has received way too much attention, and is far too detailed, whereas 'core human knowledge' such as science has been neglected, in wikipedia. Hires an editor (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- We are taking about a TV show in which they reference pop-culture all the time. We are not talking about 'core human knowledge' or even scientific knowledge. This information is important in the context of the show and we are not just making this stuff up. Ok, I'll be the first to admit that not everything can be properly sourced. However, what is the point of having these articles if they don't help us better understand the episode? Let the commitunty who have collectively written these articles decide if the culture reference is correct and not just arbitrarily delete them all. Isn't the first point of wikipedia: Collective Knowledge?-BigGator5 21:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're still making weak arguments; it's evident in your tone, and you are saying that the "community" should decide, but when members of the community do decide, you are unhappy that they don't agree with you. When someone decides that the rules that the community decided on should be followed, you should do your best to follow them. These articles are not to "better understand the episode." Please see [[1]] for more information about this. Also, the point of wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, not a fan guide to TV shows or anything else. Hires an editor (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- The community that has contributed to them and read these articles, and you bloody well know what I was talking about. A Man In Black is the only one deleting these references without even discussing it first. No one else had an issue until he came along. -BigGator5 23:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Have you taken the time to read the various and many different guides/guidelines about writing about fiction? Just because others have done it wrong does not justify continuing to do it that way. If you truly believe in the spirit of Wikipedia, please take the time to read the material about the right way to do it.
- The community that has contributed to them and read these articles, and you bloody well know what I was talking about. A Man In Black is the only one deleting these references without even discussing it first. No one else had an issue until he came along. -BigGator5 23:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're still making weak arguments; it's evident in your tone, and you are saying that the "community" should decide, but when members of the community do decide, you are unhappy that they don't agree with you. When someone decides that the rules that the community decided on should be followed, you should do your best to follow them. These articles are not to "better understand the episode." Please see [[1]] for more information about this. Also, the point of wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, not a fan guide to TV shows or anything else. Hires an editor (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also, can you point to edits made by A Man In Black that you believe are an issue? Hires an editor (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
3RR edit
Hey...I just posted to the admin notice board about your edit warring on the Now Museum, Now You Don't article. I've done the same for User:A Man In Black. Hires an editor (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, you are as much a jerk as he is... I stop and you report me. -BigGator5 19:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- If you have a look [[2]], you'll see that you've been given the benefit of the doubt, and one of the reasons is your inexperience. Besides, the admins would have noticed that you participated in the edit war. Had I been an admin, I could have taken the action that the admin did take...I implore you to do some reading about how wikipedia is supposed to work, and try to focus on making this a great encyclopedia. Hires an editor (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
September 2008 edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Now Museum, Now You Don't. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. This is the only warning you get on this. Please use talk pages to discuss content disputes. If you continue the edit war you will be blocked from editing. Spartaz Humbug! 15:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
advice edit
the most useful thing you can do if you want to support this content is to look fora source discussing each connection. It's likely to be in reviews of the later work. A librarian can help you find them. DGG (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge edit
|
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here! |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)