User talk:Calvin Grant

Welcome

 * }

DYK nomination of I Am a Camera (film)
Hi. I've nominated I Am a Camera (film), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. —Bruce1eetalk 12:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Law & Order episode articles
Hi Calvin Grant, and Welcome to Wikipedia! :)

I'm just notifying you to tell you that I have reverted most of your redirects to Law & Order episode articles, due to the fact that some, if not most episodes do have reliable sources, and do meet Wikipedia episode guidlines. Also, all articles do have a talk page, where you can discuss with other editors why you're redirecting the article.

If there is anything further, whether it be problems, questions, or any assistance, please feel free to contact me. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 08:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I'm going to be changing back everything you did because the episodes do not have reliable sources that show the episodes are notable on their own. I suggest that you do not undo any changes unless you can prove that such sources exist. Many of these episodes have had notes on them for two, three and even four years requesting sources. Four years seems more than long enough to wait for sources. Calvin Grant (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't you know that "Episodes serve as references to themselves"? remove ones that have no source/reference section in them. I'll revert back all the articles that infact do have sources. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Episodes serve as references for themselves for establishing what happens within the episode. Describing the plot, listing guest stars, information like that. The episodes do not establish their own notability. For an individual episode to be notable there need to be independent reliable sources that discuss the specific episodes. That doesn't mean blogs like TV.com, it doesn't mean IMDB that anyone can contribute to and it doesn't mean TV by the numbers ratings listings. If you can provide such sources for any episode then I encourage you to add them to the articles. Without them the articles should not and cannot stand alone. Calvin Grant (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, actually references for the reception of the episode + the fact many of those episodes you pointed out just happen to be in the final season of the show, less than four years ago, as you state. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And before you do continue removing content from later seasons that do infact have sources, I request there to be consensus on the matter, and if the result is "delete" you may proceed, by all means. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, if you paid attention instead of just undoing everything, you would see that many of the articles have been requesting reliable sources since January 2007, well over 4 years ago. I did not say that EVERY episode has been without sources for 4 years. A source that establishes nothing beyond "this episode aired and this many people watched it" does not establish the notability of the episode. Every episode that ever aired on television has ratings information; the existence of that information doesn't make every episode that ever aired on television independently notable. So, again, please do not undo redirects unless you can provide independent sources for the specific episode. If they don't have sources available like for example Blackmail (Law & Order) or Dignity (Law & Order) or Zebras (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit) then stop restoring them. I'm not interested in deleting information and redirects are not deletion. The information remains, awaiting reliable sources. Which I again suggest you find before undoing the redirects. Calvin Grant (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I suggest that you mention this with consensus. You don't delete or redirect something without going to the article talk page, and discussing it with other editors. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I suggest that you have no idea what you're talking about. And I suggest that you stop wasting your time undoing legitimate editorial actions and spend it on finding sources instead. Calvin Grant (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop. Both of you. There's no point in edit warring over this. Calvin, I appreciate you're being WP:BOLD, but per WP:BRD the next step is discussion. If you're not happy with how the discussion is progressing, then take it to a wider forum, perhaps get a WP:3O on the talk page of the articles in question or an WP:RFC on Talk:Law & Order. It is acceptable for MelbourneStar to remove warnings on their talk page and it is not acceptable for you to re-add them. MelbourneStar, you should know better than to edit war over something like this, try to keep calm. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mushrooms (Law & Order), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ''If you could wait just 5 min, then some of us could add a ref. Thanks.'' MarB4  •ɯɒɹ• 10:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Calvin - If you do not stop blanking these pages / redirecting them without discussion, I will block you. ''  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting this quite simply, you are being disruptive. I can see your point that the articles are waiting for sources and have been waiting a while, but there is no deadline. Constant edit warring with multiple editors is not helping the situation. Start a discussion, as I suggested above, and work through it. It is not appropriate for you to edit war to remove this content.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not removing content and I am not blanking pages and anyone who says so is being dishonest. I am redirecting articles about non-notable TV episodes, some of which have had requests for references for FOUR AND A HALF YEARS, to lists of episodes. The information is still there and anyone who can find reliable references for them can undo the redirect and add the references. So far the person who's been jumping down my throat for the last hour hasn't bothered to do that. I don't appreciate threats or bullying and I don't appreciate false accusations. Calvin Grant (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are redirecting in a disruptive manner against local consensus. I've counted at least 3 editors who've asked you to stop. For mass redirection on this scale, you need more than your own opinion. If you believe all these pages should be redirected, raise it on the talk page for the series, or a related wikiproject, but don't do it off your own back. Certainly do not edit war to remove something like that.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And as for threats and bullying, I put up a simple warning, you are being disruptive and I will block you if you carry on. I couldn't give a hoot about the articles in question, I've never watched Law and order, and I never intend to.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for I Am a Camera (film)
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 05:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)