User talk:Edgarde/2009

Thanks for your help to User:I. Khider and myself.

Hey, Edgarde. Just wanted to say thanks for your help to User:I. Khider and myself. I've tried to point out some Wikipedia policies and guidelines to I. Khider, and he/she seems to have taken this as some kind of criticism or attack. Hopefully things'll get straightened out soon. I don't intend to do any more work on Muslimgauze or to have any more contact with I. Khider except as such communication should arise through normal Wikipedia activities. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess that make sense for now, but it is my hope that you can resume contributing to Muslimgauze articles in the near future. Salaam ale-kum. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't really know anything about that subject and don't have any particular interest in it. I tried to make a helpful link in the article, but apparently I had misunderstood something so basic as what "Muslimgauze" refers to. :-) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The work of WikiGnomes is always appreciated, especially on a project with many new users. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Edgarde,

I replied 'Scholarly Jihad' is 'scholarly struggle' I. Khider (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've posted a reply. I'd appreciate it if you could read both I. Khider's post and mine and give us any feedback that seems appropriate to you. I'm not happy with the way this has been going, and I'd like a third-party opinion. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Age

Suggest you remove th field in all the relevant articles then, ad another user was doing. Otherewise someone will re-fix the tempalte. Rich Farmbrough, 17:49 22 January 2009 (UTC).

Sorry about dat

In the Spock article. I immediately noted my error, and was fixing it, but you got to it first. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Momentary Lapse US-250.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Momentary Lapse US-250.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Div-bell-300.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Div-bell-300.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 11:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Every instance where Mr. Pibb has been mentioned on television

For my part, I liked (an agreed with) your comments in the deletion debate. I saw where someone responded to it with "WP:CIVIL please" and I can say that he's wrong. WP:CIVIL does not apply to statements made about an article, or to arguments, or to a line of thought. It does apply, of course, to statements directed toward a specific individual, such as calling someone "a big crybaby" in response to something they've just written, or saying "What the hell are you talking about", etc. There is no bar against humor (or, for those British people "humour") in discussions about the quality of what's on Wikipedia. Don't let someone's self-righteous comments deter you from speaking your mind. Mandsford (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouraging comments. But honestly, snitty, saracstic remarks are a form of aggression that certainly violates WP:CIVIL even if they represent a valid position. While this sort of humo(u)r can artfully executed, and even help illustrate a position, 95% of the time such comments are not at all helpful, and just fuel drama. I was being blunt and aggressive, and the exact same things could have been said in a polite tone, so in my opinion the WP:CIVIL comment was justfied.

Thanks for writing. I do appreciate occasionally hearing editors who aren't big crybabies. I still wish Wyeth would send me my meds on time, but at least something good came from this. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Woah! Time Warp!

I never made that edit! And I certainly would have remembered this page! Someone's scarffed my IP Yak! Larrry2 (talk)

Yeh, looks like. Larrry2 has been indef-blocked, along with Ratttso and Cc2po, all confirmed socks, and their common IP address, 71.114.8.82, was put on ice for 3 months. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I didn't expect that editor to last long. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of these guys think the regulars here have never seen sockpuppetry before, and they probably wonder how they get found out so fast. Assuming they care. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Rescue tag

Why did you first Prod an article, then add a rescue tag to the article? Ikip (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Subsequent to the WP:PRODding, an editor stated on that article's talk page that this was a real practice, and the article should be kept. I was unable to find sources confirming this, and feel this article would need substantial improvement before I can vote Keep, so it seems well-suited for Template:Rescue. I notice you removed this template. Can you tell me why? The reason you give is that I added it, having previously prodded it (which I have explained above), and it "does not belong" on some WikiProject (that is not specified in the template). This does not speak to the notability or verifiability of the subject, and the article remains up for deletion, which I do believe means this template is appropriate and still needed.

I also cannot help noticing that your Delete vote in this AfD contains an assumption of bad faith, and uses the language "Snow delete" in a place where WP:SNOW does not apply. Puzzling to say the least. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Pestling"? Well, ya learn something new every day. Only now I've got this Danny Kaye shtick running through my head. [1] The important thing to remember is to drink from the chalice from the palace, not from the vessel with the pestle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You have given us much to think about. Thank you, Sir. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Tom Tucker (Family Guy)

I've opened a merge discussion at the above-mentioned location. Please consider participating if you are interested. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As of now, I'm trying to deactivate my account, so can you remove all or your comments on my talk page. Thanks. I don't want anything appearing on my talk page anymore. Thanks.Cobenobo (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Attack page in userspace

Please do not keep information used to mock or disparage your colleagues in your userspace. Doing so is unconstructive and not conducive to a collegial editing environment. Keeping sections of pages to mock other editors is unacceptable per Wikipedia:User page ("What may I not have on my user page?...Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" and "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community.") I shouldn't have to request an admin delete it or nominate it for deletion. For the same reason why I do not keep information used negatively against eidtors with whom I disagree in my userspace, I expect the same from you. Moreover, I have asked editors not to refer to my old username due to real world concerns, which DGG and Randomran can confirm really have happened. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied to on User talk:A Nobody. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have sent you an email about this. DGG (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have responded with a message telling you I see no need for you to email me privately on this. Since there is already a threat to delete History information from my userspace, such a sanitization can be performed after the fact on this discussion as well.

No information on the page in question was included that user's current userID until that editor chose to edit my userspace as an attack page (!!!!!!), so it seems reasonable to me that is not the primary concern or even an important one—otherwise That editor would have not created this linkage by do editing when other options exist (including leave me a message on my freaking talk page for gosh sakes). That editor is not new on Wikipedia, and knew what they were doing. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it was not just that stuff, but also having a section titled "Nice comments other contributors said about or in support of Pixelface" with the edit summary of "oddities" obviously implies that it is odd for someone to say something nice about that user, i.e. it's mocking him and as such is just not called for. Imagine if I did the same about some deletionist in my userspace; I wouldn't because it would neither be nice nor would it help improve Wikipedia. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So your concern is that this is an attack page, and hurts other editor's feelings? That is really your position? Please email me in private if your real reasons cannot be discussed here. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but for the duration of this discussion; I hope that you will remove this information and keep it removed on good faith so as to prevent edit warring. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed per request, pending plausible explanation in private for some reason. God I hate this nonsense.

Okay now my Tools sub-page is locked, so I cannot make this edit. In my own userspace. Anger. Whatever happened to WP:3RR? Is He Who Cannot Be Named exempt from that now too? When someone unlocks this page, I will remove references to He Who Cannot Be Named for now. Presuming said page is unlocked, I will do so when I get back from feeding the ducks. However, the reasons I have been given strain WP:AGF, which was never my strong point to begin—continued reversion will require better reasons than I have received. God I hate this nonsense. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this, thank you. I will of course avoid reverting vandalism on your userspace if that is what you wish. Have a pleasant afternoon! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for protecting this page, but as you said, what transpired there today was kind of nonsense, and I wanted it stopped. Let me know if you need any help with anything in the future (this is basically the same comment I made on my talk page, feel free to respond here, there, or in both places). Protonk (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice from User:DGG

considering recent edit summaries on [User:Edgarde/tools] there might be a purpose in simply acting directly per BLP, which applies everywhere in Wikipedia. I would do so if it were not a matter in which i had such substantial involvement--I do not think a challenge to the deletion of that page as G10 would at present get very far, because the bad faith in those summaries is self-evident. Ed, I suggest the best course would be to ask for deletion as G7, and reconstruct the rest of the content. DGG (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the disputed content, even tho I have no faith in the reasons I have been given to do this. In light of this, I do not appreciate the repeated characterizations of me acting in bad faith. If I request this sub-page be deleted, it would be with the intention of restoring the content as it was before A Nobody edited it. Wikipedia userspace contains many "Tools" sub-pages, and also pages collecting diffs about various disruptive users; this content was on a non-advertised sub-page, well-below the fold. I doubt anyone but my stalkers would have read it, and there was considerable dispute among those editing this page (all without asking, and with 4 different editors reverting A Nobody's edit) about whether there was anything inappropriate about its content. Three different editors reverted A Nobody, one of whom opined

if you want a user RFC or an RFAR that can't help referring to your previous usernames, this is the right way to go about it

... which is what I believed as well. Still do.

DGG, I would consider your advice if it came from another administrator; however, I have no confidence in your impartiality in matters regarding A Nobody. (Or regarding anyone in your tribe, or any of your tribe's issues, but those are a future discussion.) Could you please find an impartial voice for this course of action, perhaps at WP:AN/I? A Nobody seems to have no objection to posting links to the diffs in question to that forum for some reason, so this should not require further communications via private email. I can cope with A Nobody twisting the knife and making peevish demands—no one expects any different from that editor—but since you are an admin, I'm now feeling bullied.

Sorry for the length. I will be AFK most of today (like I wish I could have been Sunday), so please do not expect an immediate response. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry you feel this way. You might see my comments at his editor review [2]. If you'll reread the above, I already said I wouldn't do anything admin myself in this, & I tell him to ask some other admin than myself. I have never used admin powers on anything involving him except to protect his old user & talk p. -- nor have I ever used them with respect to a friend or opponent. I don't even use them much at all except to speedy delete (often) and semiprotect against vandalism (a little). I don;'t like formal process & try to avoid it, & almost never initiate it, but if someone starts something I think I can help, or asks my opinion, I'll say what I think. I work now as I worked before I became an admin, by advice. I know people sometimes take my advice, to quote my favorite author, Samuel Johnson, "as if I were to throw you out a 4 story window & advise you to fall soft". I try to avoid it & I like to imagine it has effect only as people agree with what I do & say, not formal status. I won't trouble you further on this. But as for the issue of fiction & inclusiveness, & merging, I am by no means as absolute as you seem to think--look at a wider spectrum of my afd comments. And you'll see from my talk p. that i will cooperate with anyone willing. DGG (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to A Nobody's ER. Considering its timing, your comment doesn't convince me of much, but the amount of comment on that editor's disruptive behavior (including sanitizing redactions of other editors in that very ER) led me to do a search on this editor's history. I'd honestly never done this. Holy cow—an incredible history of bad faith and disruption, including a brazen and obnoxious confirmed sock puppet I'd never heard of. I no longer feel a need to keep diffs on this editor; it's now obvious that A Nobody's past behavior has fastened many eyes on his current activity, and only the the helplessly naive can take him for credible.

All that bothers me now is A Nobody's ongoing charm initiative to editors who've just fallen off the turnip truck, and the lack of an RfC/U. However, that RfC clearly will write itself once initiated.

As for the continued characterization of that very tiny early draft of a diff collection as an attack page, please be advised that I don't do this casually to hurt people's reputations on this social network. It's done for editors who've necessitated a ban for far too long with no one else doing anything about it. I have been a major disputant in an Arbitration and an Editor RfC, and have contributed substantially to several others. I also didn't write these in the WP:COOLest of language; the effort of collecting all those diffs requires on my part a certain level of pique, and editors so listed have at that point more important things to worry about than sanitizing their reputations.

As we both know, "Attack pages" are articles or article elements designed to disparage a subject. For example, the article Negro Project was an attack page created by anti-abortion zealots to disparage Margaret Sanger.

As for Wikipedia:No personal attacks

discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion

DGG, I'm not saying you should have your Admin rights removed—Wikipedia needs Admins, and I don't want the job—but you continue to see this as an attack page, an WP:AGF violation, a WP:CIVILity problem, and now a kind of WP:BLP violation (as you awkwardly frame it), in your effort to advocate for A Nobody. This tells me your inability to be impartial in these matters is serious enough that you should probably make a habit of recusing yourself and asking another administrator to handle them. That you sometimes disagree with A Nobody is simply not enough. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: as I've stated before this little spat,[3] I do consider some of my disagreements with you WP:RFCworthy. This is not intended as a threat, but if you really "[don't] like formal process",[4] I hope you will give what I am saying to you here more than a little consideration. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing on that ER page I havent told him privately before. I tell you again that I do not intent to initiate any action here respecting him or ever do anything administrative regarding him or regarding you. Please look at my log and see how little I use the tools except for speedies--I do more deletions than 90% of the admins.

you might want to look my Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DGG to see how people feel about me here--also see Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported something Obviously, like any active admins, I've gotten a few people annoyed at me since then.

I have now told you that I do not intend to do any admin actions involving him about five times--perhaps you will finally believe me. Giving people advice, tho, is not an admin action--however, as far as you are concerned, since you have a problem with my giving you advice, as I already said I will not trouble you with any unless you should choose to ask me. DGG (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And the above was my advice to you. Obviously you are free to disregard it. Thanks for communicating. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Userbox deleted

I have deleted your attack userbox. Please use wikipedia's dispute resolution processes to handle further content and/or policy issues. Continued denigration or harassment of other users is against wikipedia policy, and may result in measures being taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I had that coming. Thanks for letting me know what happened. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. We've all run up against what we think is excessive process wonkery and bureaucratic red tape. Whether our frustrations are justified or not, denigrating other people who, ostensibly, are engaged in a good faith effort to enhance the project, just as you may be as well, is only going to make matters worse. However, nothing is stopping you from walking away from your computer, opening the window, and engaging in primal scream therapy -- Avi (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Killing Yourself To Live

Hi there, I've already undeleted them all and re-opened the AfD, because I closed it early by mistake. Black Kite 20:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad Lieutenant / Signifying Rapper

Your edits to Bad Lieutenant and Smoke Some Kill re: Signifying Rapper ... I'm not so sure it wasn't a sample. Can you cite some info that it is NOT a sample? You link to the AV Club's interview with Ferrara but that doesn't prove that it wasn't a sample.

From my limited knowledge of how these things work, if it wasn't a sample, there wouldn't have been clearance issues in using it on the album or the film. If it was a new interpolation played by studio musicians, Page wouldn't have been able to force its removal. ExampleOfHumanBeing (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I was sure it wasn't there—I was going by the liner notes, which credit 2 or 3 studio musicians (among them, Joe "The Butcher" Nicolo) for "Signifying Rapper" and one or two other tracks—but listening to the track now I think I'm hearing the sample.

I'll change it back, but we could use a source (other than Ferrara, who could be misspeaking) saying there was a sample—even without, the track resembles the original sufficiently to constitute copyright infringement, and the reader should not have to know this by itself would mot merit the destruction of media. I should also re-edit the audio sample so the guitar line in question plays longer. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed in Smoke Some Kill, Bad Lieutenant and Schoolly D. Discogs has a list of the players. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

fleshlight page on wikipedia

the fleshlight article has some external links but some affiliate deleted the links and replaced the last one there with his affiliate code, please do something —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh2xx (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I have requested[5] that external links to fleshlight.com be reverted when affiliate linked. If this request is not accepted, it can probably be added to the spam blacklist. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment request

Hey, if you're around, would you mind commenting on the debate(s) going on on the Quagmire page? Thanks! DP76764 (Talk) 20:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a comment. Thanks for inviting my input. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! Much, much appreciated! There's fresh 'action' in the Bob Hope section too, if you're bored ;) DP76764 (Talk) 21:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm avoiding the Bob Hope issue for now. Long ago I recall seeing something saying he was modeled after Hope in the nose and maybe jowls, but I can't source this at all. I'd be okay with this bit staying in the article, but if others are challenging it, I'm not about to argue against its deletion. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR

It's been two and a half days since I last touched that page and besides, here's the remark I left when I stopped reverting:
I don't want to edit war so I'll leave it as is for now. However, as the decision to exclude that category was bold, I thought I was allowed to revert as per WP:BRD.
Please explain why you completely ignored the WP:BRD cycle, yet you're giving me the {{3RR}} template almost 60 hours later. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, my last revert to Glenn Quagmire was made on Mar. 27 - why did you template me just now? I intentionally dropped the edit war for the sake of discussion.

Now, the WP:BRD question still remains unanswered... 87.69.177.35 (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I stopped the almost edit war some days ago, again — giving the chance for a discussion to take place. The WP:BRD cycle tells us that if you made the bold removal, I reverted it and chimed into the discussion. Weren't you supposed to wait before removing again?

And by the way, your "reasons" are pure original research, so far no one proved me differently. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

NP at all, let's ask for the dispute resolution. As for your accusations, I believe that singling out a minute of the episode as a "one-off joke" is original research — maybe synthesis would be a better description. Why? You concluded that because the age was not mentioned for almost 7 full seasons, it does not exist; moreover, if the episode's plot did not revolve around Quagmire's age, the latter isn't important. As I already asked in the past, please find a reliable source that affirms this synthesized conclusion. Otherwise, it is not suitable for Wikipedia, let alone unrealistically lacking basic human logic (this is not a personal attack, this is my view on this decision). 87.69.177.35 (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of representing my position accurately, here it is:

---

This character's age was mentioned in the premise to a joke in March 2009, 10 years after the show's debut. The age stated in this episode is not an important factor in this character. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) cautions against "Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information" and creating a "fictional character article or section written like a biography". Therefore, the most that can be said in this case is the character had

no age for the first 6 seasons, but in Season 7 his age is given as 61 (with his driver's license giving "1948" as his year of birth).

In the unlikely, but possible that the show's producers (or someone with similar knowledge) can be sourced stating the character's age was known to them much earlier, and this some effect on the character's development; in this circumstance, this is an important factor in the character.

---

And apparently your main question is "Is this either WP:OR or WP:SYN?" Is this what you want to find out?

Third opinion is usually the first step in dispute resolution. To what forum do you wish to take this instead of WP:3O? / edg ☺ ☭ 16:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed WP:3O wording

Can you agree on this wording?

# Talk:Glenn Quagmire#Age Disagreement on what constitutes WP:OR (or WP:SYN),
whether a television character's age stated in a late episode is important (or even
exists) in earlier episodes, and if the evidence need be treated differently because it
is supposedly in a joke. (Apologies for piling it on.) 17:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost — I'd remove "in earlier episodes". We are talking about the series in general, focusing on other episodes and presenting them as opposed to FOX-y Lady is irrelevant. Oh, and I'd also add: "is it appropriate for editors to base their decisions on misinformation, be it deliberate or erroneous?" Other than that — seems OK. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But what I have been saying is that there is no age in earlier episodes. Why omit that? I presume the "erroneous information" is not intended seriously. Otherwise, the Talk page will speak for itself. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is!!! Ctjf83 gave me an example of "the crap we get" — someone stating Peter's age — and "supported" himself by saying "Peter's age has never been mentioned or even hinted at." I proved him wrong and he never responded. This is exactly what I meant by "erroneous information." 87.69.177.35 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I think this makes a less neutral, and more verbose, drama-driven message, and the appendix you added in the parenthetical is back-peddling in a way that changes the different question substantially, but I don't think further changes are needed. Thanks for helping. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Please take a look at this diff here and tell me this is not pure original research on your end. Let me even quote the exact words from your edit summary:
...based on situations that were probably intended at jokes since they are *contrary* to Q's character.
Are you saying it's OK for you to decide what MacFarlane and the gang intended? I'm all up for common sense, but this is actually overboard even for me. This is your interpretation. Here's mine:
These situations are intended to portray Quagmire's sensitive side, as opposed to what we are used to — him being a conscienceless sex maniac.
Now how in God's name is your interpretation better than mine? 87.69.177.35 (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't personalize this. I had no idea who added that information—in fact, I was reverting an Admin—and anyway it does not matter.

The part I deleted was clearly original research. My edit is not original research because it is not information I am adding to the article; it is just an example of why this information may be wrong, and an explanation why this information should not be added to the article (without regard to proving it "right" or "wrong"). There is actually no reason to speculate about a fictional character's personality in this fashion, either way, without reliable sources, preferably secondary sources not affiliated with the production.

Increasingly it seems that you are using the term "original research" to mean an explanation given for an edit you disagree with. Please reconsider this tactic. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really, not at all actually. The explanation itself is original research, since it contains your personal analysis of the collective situation based on several show clips, which you selectively chose to group together as "irrelevant throwaway jokes."

As for account — no thanks, I used to have one and got stalked at some point. Thanks for the advice though. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, the information I gave in my edit summary is not original research. Quoth WP:OR:

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought

Reasons given for removing OR are not themselves OR because they are not being published as article content.

I would suggest a WP:3O on this one, but since the current one has become overcomplicated to the point it is being passed over, it seems like a tool that won't work here. Would you consider Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User? It might help you gain some insight into the policies you are quoting. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you blindly quote the policy without fully understanding why it's there and what constitutes its essence. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Quagmire

Why are you doing a request for comments? This IP is being ridiculous in wanting to get his/her way. The user clearly needs to realize that the current consensus is not to list Quagmire's age. CTJF83Talk 15:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize it's a bit ridiculous, but basicly this discussion moved off Talk:Glenn Quagmire and onto User talk pages. I doubt the anon will recognized the consensus, and I also doubt they will accept the decision of the RfC (as didn't happen in Talk:Meg Griffin#Third_opinion). I just want to see how it plays out.

By the way, this wouldn't be such a bad edit if IP didn't change the heading. I think it gives a sensible context to the comment, and doesn't overreach in the interpretation. My only objections here would be the lack of a source—this is still an interpretaion, thus WP:OR—and the heading change, which does overemphasize "age". Would you accept this (without the heading change) as a compromise? / edg ☺ ☭ 15:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I still really think we shouldn't list it. Like you said, it isn't important, and policy is against jokes. Personally I think you should just ignore the IP and not have done the resolution. S/he is obviously gonna keep complaining to s/he gets his/her way. CTJF83Talk 15:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I thought it had a chance; I rather like it, tho I retain my principled aversion to "it is revealed". Anyway, I'd recommend you consider a different approach with the IP. Obviously they won't shut up and sit down just because they are given reason to. Better to just ignore.

If you were to comment in the RfC, it wouldn't hurt to mention Template:Family Guy character. I left it out for concision, but IP is making an issue of it. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I'm hoping the RfC will set a useful precedent. FG articles accrue considerable cruft from editors who cannot escape in-universe perspective, as if they were creating a WP:BLP. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

LOL, has it gotten that bad? That is a lovely bunch of ducks though =) DP76764 (Talk) 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate

Hello, Edgarde. You have new messages at Talk:Glenn Quagmire.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

87.69.177.35 (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Threaded discussion under RfC

I cannot move that for a simple reason: there must be a clear separation between who was involved and who was not. If I relocate the thread to where you want, there are great chances of the whole situation getting mixed up and unbalanced as far as the definition of third party regarding this whole affair. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Edgarde. You have new messages at Talk:Glenn Quagmire.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

87.69.177.35 (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Glenn Quagmire

I removed the notice since I realized nobody will be reading it. People will go straight to the point where they intend to insert the age. A notice like that would only be effective if it is placed somewhere near the point in which people wants to add the text.

I think [6] is almost a good compromise. I would keep "To match the retro character, the episode FOX-y Lady reveals Quagmire's birth year to be 1948" and not mention "making him 61 years old at the time, much to the surprise of his friends." I don't want to mention that he is 61, because that age is obviously going to be outdated as times go by. The last part is just indiscriminate plot detail. --Maitch (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think giving the age (and year, both stated in the episode) emphasizes what an anachronism he is, and in this wording it is contextualized as being within the episode. Nothing here says the show has a strict real-time chronology, so I think this works. If anything, the year prepares the reader for a very loose time continuity. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Personnel per ..."

You've changed some Personnel sections, removing "Personnel per ..." comments that have a source.

I use that model and it was probably me that created those statements. (I didn't check and it isn't important.) I agree that source details belong in cites and thus in the Notes section. With a list of items, such as the Personnel section, adding a citation that appears after the last entry is misleading. It looks like the last entry comes from the source, and not all the entries. also, adding the "Personnel per" statement is akin to adding the name of a person who is quoted.

Can we discuss this before you make further changes? Perhaps there is a solution that avoids something drastic and ugly like adding the same citation to every item in the list. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

One reason I didn't replace this in more titles is I was waiting for feedback. Is there a central place for this discussion (article talk page, Wikiproject, other) or should we discuss it here?

I think a list needs to be treated like a paragraph, with citations at the end, rather than repeatedly for each datum. Adding a verbal explanation of the sources for every list seems superfluous and awkward, and interrupts the reader by injecting tangential information. For what it's worth, I've not seen it done elsewhere on Wikipedia.

In the case of the personnel list, it seems intuitive to me that information on the previous personnel might be contained in the citation for the last member listed. Has this caused problems before? / edg ☺ ☭ 19:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks for being so reasonable about this. We can keep our discussion on your talk page; I'll watch it for your response. But... I suppose the Music, Albums or Songs projects would have jurisdiction. WikiProject Albums is probably the right place, though if we bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums I suspect there will be a big discussion about it. I am not sure I am up for that but maybe it's for the best.

You said that "a list needs to be treated like a paragraph, with citations at the end", but there are plenty of places in WP where citations are added at the end of each sentence. In well-documented articles, I think that's the rule and not the exception. I agree that a citation at the end of a paragraph can work, but I think it depends on the content.

I can't say that personnel lists have caused a particular problem when only the last item is cited—I am not sure how we'd ever know if there was a problem or not—but my intuition was the opposite of yours: when I see only the last item cited, it looks like only one assertion is supported by evidence.

Do you think starting a discussion at the WikiProject Albums talk page is the right next step? — John Cardinal (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I propose that for citations, the personnel list can be treated as a single sentence, since the same source usually provides all this information. An obvious exception would be handling a participant whose role is not acknowledged in the usual sources, but otherwise it seems like it would be generally understood.

WT:ALBUM seem like a good place for opinions on this one. I have not had much experience with WT:SONGS or WT:MUSIC, but either venue sounds fine to me. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Karen S. Evans-100.jpg

Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image was either individually tagged or was in a category tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Karen S. Evans-100.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#F8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FG Airdates

Can you comment here about listing two original air dates. Thank you, CTJF83Talk 22:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Relics01-b-300.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Relics01-b-300.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 04:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:1996RelicsLP-300.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:1996RelicsLP-300.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 04:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

American Pie cover

If covers can have their own page, don't worry, I will move the Madonna part in "American Pie". But if not, we'll just have to leave it that way. Alecsdaniel (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Cover versions

Howdy! Let's talk: WP:COVERDISCUSS. - eo (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for this [7]. - eo (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Brigitte Gabriel

Thanks for taking the axe to this one -- it was very necessary. I suspect that the IP editors will be back though. – ukexpat (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fairbanks diocese scandal

I disagree very strongly with the need to create a spinoff article such as Sexual abuse scandal in Roman Catholic Diocese of Fairbanks; such an article would be created under the terms of WP:SUMMARY. I also don't see a problem with these sources, two from newspapers and one from Catholic News Agency. Unless someone can make suggestions for improving this, I would like to restore this information. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I felt it might be appropriate to create such an article is that the Fairbanks scandal was perhaps among the worst in all the United States. There are some pretty grim sources that describe the local parishes as a kind of pedophile paradise, a deliberate dumping ground for sexually deviant priests. [8] [9] ADM (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied to on Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Fairbanks. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy

Can you provide input for this, please? CTJF83Talk 23:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Input here too, please CTJF83Talk 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied to both. Thank you for soliciting my opinions. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you comment here too. And for liability, it isn't soliciting, it's cause your a major project member ;) CTJF83Talk 06:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks again. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Kristin Maguire

Sorry if this seems pedantic, but I nominated Kristin Maguire for deletion at the redirects for deletion page. I'm open to persuasion though... the more I think about it the more confused I am. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Muslim spammer

Mslatif is back. Please use the proper template to warn/block him. -- Marawe (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. The template you would use for this is {{uw-spam2}}. Apply it to the offending editor's user page (along with your signature) like so:

{{subst:uw-spam2}} -- ~~~~

A list of user warnings can be found on Wikipedia:UTM.

A good-faith alternative might be to communicate with Mslatif (talk · contribs) about why using Wikipedia to publicize these sites is a problem. At this point, Mslatif may be editing in the sincere belief that these links are helpful—if this were the case, a block would not explain the problem, and would discourage productive contributions from this editor in the future. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Userify CyanogenMod

Thanks for letting me know about the recently deleted article CyanogenMod. I have requested Casliber (talk · contribs) to Userify it to User:Virdi/CyanogenMod

FG

Can you help me make Family Guy a GA. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 12:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Look i am try in to get you may now kiss the guy who recives in to GA so can you help me. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Family Guy episodes

In this section, do you think OR about when the episodes will air is ok? Grande13 feels the need to add episode titles with out official Fox press releases, based on the OR of Adult Swim airing one week after Fox. Please comment here. CTJF83 chat 17:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

They are on the OFFICIAL schedule from adultswim. Fox has exclusive rights for 1 week before they can air on adult swim, this isnt anything new here Grande13 (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the issue. In what section of Talk:List of Family Guy episodes is this being discussed? / edg ☺ ☭ 18:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

check here on the talk page chat Grande13 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No original research

The Family Guy characters webpage change did not violate Wikipedia's no original research policy. One word was removed and still remained correct as to the description. However, if you do wish to delete that sentence, that is your business. USN1977 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Yeah, I know I should explain things a little better in edit summaries, but it gets a little tedious sometimes, ya know? I think most of the recent additions have been from different IPs, so you know they probably aren't looking at the edit history. Will try to be more thorough with the summaries though. Thanks! DP76764 (Talk) 17:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In Universe

I don't think I full understand this. Like you mentioned, that Lois isn't a Jewish in the first 127 episodes, so we shouldn't list her as Jewish, right? I always try to remove any info that is only from one single episode, such as that. Is that pretty much what the In U guidelines mean? CTJF83 chat 01:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Actually, I only removed 1 alt description, on 1 occasion. After seeing the reason it was added, I fully support the use of alt descriptions. DP76764 (Talk) 22:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy merge proposal

Hi, I proposed merging Seth & Alex's Almost Live Comedy Show with Family Guy 3 weeks ago, and haven't had much feedback, so I'm requesting your opinion (along with other major project members) on whether the page should be merged or not. Thank you, CTJF83 chat 09:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pink Floyd A Collection of Great Dance Songs 1997 Remastered CD-300.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pink Floyd A Collection of Great Dance Songs 1997 Remastered CD-300.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistress Absolute

Many thanks for your warning / suggestion. Will follow your advice in future Annette46 (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)