User talk:Blurred Lines/Archives/2013/Nov

Featured picture candidates/Müga Wasserspiele sw 2013
Hi Blurred Lines:

I see your nominations (and RfA), here, and in Commons. I appreciate them. But too much counter arguments like this is really harmfull to the contributors. Please be calm and avoid too much arguments. Just a friendly advise. (I think you know Tuxyso is from de wiki and not very active here, to create new articles.) J Kadavoor J e e 16:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement that I said was not a aggressive thing, or to cause a argument between me and Mattximus, it was just a statement about that it doesn't really matter if the article was created, this is about the photo were talking about, not the article.  Blurred   Lines   16:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See Featured picture criteria #5 and #7; EN and COM FPs have different criteria. Your argument is valid for COM:FP J Kadavoor J e e 02:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

GAN for The Quarterback
Blurred Lines, I'd like to ask you to revert your nomination of The Quarterback as a Good Article. The reason is simple: the article simply isn't ready. At the moment, it's C-class at best.

There is a significant amount of work that needs to be done to the article before it's ready to be nominated: an entire music section needs to be created, the Plot section needs to be edited for prose style, the Production section (the bulk of which was my creation) needs further work, and also there's additional information that should be included.

Also, nominating an article is a commitment: the nominator has to be willing and equipped to deal with all the issues that come up. The fact that you have never edited the article, while not a technical bar to nomination, is a bad sign; nominations frequently fail unless made by people with a knowledge of the subject and experience with the GA process, or who have at least done significant work on the article and are invested in its success.

I hope you'll consider my request, and remove the nomination template from the article's talk page. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅  Blurred   Lines   04:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your Welcome.  Blurred   Lines   04:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Icarly logo
When you get a moment can you give your approval here, so we can call the issue “resolved” – Many Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅  Blurred   Lines   20:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Dan Schneider
I'm not being disruptive. I'm trying to find a source that is acceptable to you. What is the problem with these sources I'm finding? Where is the list of sources that Wiki finds unacceptable, and why? How are we supposed to know which source is good and which ones aren't, and why ahead of time? This is not being disruptive by listing different sources, and you can't prove in posting another source, is somehow "disruptive." That is not the intent of the meaning of the word disruptive. Katydidit (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edits on Dan Schneider have been repeatedly reverted by because you have added sources that aren't reliable, adding categories that has something to do with the year of the birth, and adding where he was born without a source, that's being disruptive. There's already a discussion about the birth date and place problem in the talk page article. If you would like to discuss the links that you think are reliable to the article, I highly suggest you do that.   Blurred   Lines   02:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:CSD
Your recent nominations under this criterion are actually doubly incorrect. First of all! the articles were created before the user was blocked, so not "in defiance of a block or ban." Secondly, if you look at the block notice you would see that this is what we call a "soft" block. This is a type of block often used when a username is an issue, it allows the user to simply create a new account with a non-infringing username without the need to appeal the current block, so even if they had created a new account to start these articles that would actually be fine. The criteria for speedy deletion are deliberately narrow in their scope and it is generally not a good idea to try and "shoehorn" an article into a criterion that doesn't really apply. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

re: José Isidro Moreno Árcega
Hi. I noticed you tagged José Isidro Moreno Árcega for speedy deletion, in spite that the article clearly asserted notability (all members of national legislatures are notable, see Notability_(people)) and was properly referenced. A more prudent approach would be better, deletion should never be a goal in itself and speedy deletion tags should be reserved for clear-cut, unambiguous cases (for others use prod or afd). --Soman (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This edit summary is also not correct, as CSD tags can be removed by anyone (except the creator of the article). Moreover, the article in question is clearly not a case for speedy deletion on basis of notability, as there are several claims of some sort of notability in it (several of the shows mentioned are clearly notable). --Soman (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014
Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅  Blurred   Lines   03:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hope you have a bit of fun participating in the WikiCup --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you for your support!  Blurred   Lines   04:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Your unexplained revert on The Simpsons (season 25)
I made this edit, and you reverted it with no explanation. The passage in question lists Edna Krabappel among several characters that could be killed off in an episode that is presumed to be the Season 26 premiere. However, in that same paragraph, there is a claim confirmed by multiple sources that Mrs. Krabappel will not be killed. I removed the character from the list because otherwise there would be two contradictory claims in that paragraph. If you think Mrs. Krabappel's name should stay on the list, please explain why. As an aside, I didn't appreciate the complete lack of explanation for your revert. I have some helpful advice: When you make unexplained reverts, you sound like you're calling the other person a vandal. szyslak ( t ) 21:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't explain yourself either, all you said was "rm self-contradiction", which was not helpful to me because I couldn't understand it, that's why I reverted the edit, but since you have told me a valid reason why you removed content from the article, I have reverted what I have done. So happy editing!   Blurred   Lines   22:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! For future reference, "self-contradiction" is when you say two opposite things. For example, the following sentence contradicts itself: "My dog is brown and he is not brown". szyslak  ( t ) 22:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"Walking on Air" cover
Hey there! Just passing by to tell you that the "Walking on Air" cover you uploaded is fake, and it is not reported by any reliable sources (excluding JustJared and Clevver). Plus, it doesn't make much sense for the song to have a cover since it was released on iTunes under PRISM (Deluxe). Thanks!  ρedro  talk  15:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, since you have just told me that, I have elected the photo under G7.  Blurred   Lines   15:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adventure Time (season 5)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adventure Time (season 5) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1ST7 -- 07:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adventure Time (season 5)
The article Adventure Time (season 5) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adventure Time (season 5) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1ST7 -- 03:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Life of Brian GAN
Consider withdrawing this. The episode has only aired 1 day ago. The prose is still messy. Many reviews have yet to come in. I'll let you know when I've tidied it up.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes, please let me know when you have it tidied up enough, and maybe I could help with the GAN that I hope that it will later appear.  Blurred   Lines   18:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)