User talk:Carnelian10

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Call Me Mister (TV series)
 * added a link pointing to Robert Bennett


 * Lorraine De Selle
 * added a link pointing to Italian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Category changes
Hi,

It's one thing to move articles to more specific subcategories, but please stop wholesale removing categories from pages, as you have done on numerous occasions in the last 24 hours, e.g. at Teen Wolf.

I notice you've also created some brand new categories, at least two of which I suspect do not meet naming conventions owing to the slashes in their names, i.e. Category:Lists of American action/adventure television series episodes and Category:Lists of American horror/supernatural television series episodes. It's great to be bold but it's also good to spend some time getting a feel for issues in a particular Wikiproject, and genre is often a touchy subject. Don't be surprised if you get reverted. —Joeyconnick (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also wondering if there was a discussion and resulting consensus that supports all of these category renames and changes... --  Alex TW 12:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ? --  Alex TW 12:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that the "Lists of American television series episodes" required diffusion, and also concluded that "television series episodes" (for any country) is too broad a category and should be a placeholder for sub-categories. Also, once you have, for example, "British sitcom television series episodes", there is no requirement for an episode list to continue to be featured in both "Lists of British television series episodes" and "Lists of sitcom television series episodes" as they are redundant. Carnelian10 (talk)
 * Best if you reply with this at the official discussion at . --  Alex TW 06:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Unnatural Causes (TV series)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Unnatural Causes (TV series), Carnelian10!

Wikipedia editor Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Nice article. Could probably do with another ref or two. But, notwithstanding WP:NOTFORUM, I'm now having a helluvva job finding it on Amazon! :D"

To reply, leave a comment on Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

&mdash; O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  08:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pulaski (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Andrews. 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) 10:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wentworth
I'm not sure what you do not understand by "There has been multiple discussions on this topic, and the consensus is not to include cast information in the episode plot summary." The section is for the plot summary, not the cast summary - a cast section exists for a reason, and as for absent cast, WP:TVCAST clearly states If an actor misses an episode due to a real-world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source. No mention is required for anything that is not a real-world occurrence.

There is nothing in the MOS that supports the addition of such content; I believe that this sort of has been previously discussed in the MOS Overhaul discussions for Plot section and Cast and characters section. I would recommend reading the discussions there, and then realize that you should self-revert your edits. Cheers. --  Alex TW 13:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I have tried to read some of the Wiki Project Television discussions and find it all so laughably insular, I prefer not to bother. I'm simply interested in providing some content re. TV series that hopefully others will find useful. The consensus reached by a handful of contributors does not equal set-in-stone rules, which you do not have the authority to enforce anyway. There is nothing in the Manual of Style that precludes the addition of such content - and the only genuine criterion for judgement should be if readers find the information helpful. Expecting writers not to include perfectly valid information in their articles/episode lists due to the inflexible interpretation of mere guidelines by a few people is in fact utterly contrary to everything Wikipedia is supposed to be - a platform for reference. Wikipedia should be open and inclusive, and guidelines should not be decided - or officiously enforced - by a small cabal of people who harbour an inappropriate sense of ownership towards the material. The Manual of Style is principally a set of guidelines with templates to help enable writers to produce content, and such content should be judged on its own individual merits. Your entire first paragraph is completely disingenuous. Guest cast in season articles shouldn't be considered a problem since the purpose of a season article for a television series is to provide more detailed information than an overview article or basic episode list. Frankly, your self-styled enforcer of the "rules" and overzealous "hammer into anvil" approach comes across as obnoxious. Thank you. Carnelian10 (talk)
 * Your incivility isn't going to make this discussion any smoother. Everyone on the site has the ability to enforce WP:CONSENSUS, a policy that the entire site just stick to, not just thoe who feel like it. There is nothing that support the addition of the content, and in the case of ambiguity, you go with the status quo. And yes, the result of the discussions that have previously occurred. How does it help them? Guest cast, yes, it may exist, but should exist under a "Guest" section under "Cast" in the season article, and how does who is absent help the reader? It doesn't, at all. That one is supported by a guideline that I've already linked you to, so there's no excuse there. If you continue to make accusations of WP:OWN by the hard-working members of WP:TV, you'll find yourself in a whole other boat of drama after you're reported. When content is disputed by editors who know what they are doing over an editor who has been here for several days, it's best to realize that they actually know what they are talking about, and discuss when them before reinstating it, instead of edit-warring as you have - another policy to read on. If you want to talk about obnoxious, we could talk about the single editor who mass deleted multiple categories from many pages without any sort of discussion. Cheer. --  Alex TW 22:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The incivility is yours, not mine. The difference is that I do know what I'm talking about - whereas you don't, regardless of tenure on this site. Guest cast credits for individual episodes rather obviously belong in the episode summaries - it's ridiculous to expect the reader to navigate their way between two different sections of an article. Wikipedia should exist as a resource for the benefit of the readers, not as a vanity project for the editors. There's no ambiguity whatsoever. As for the categories, editors are encouraged to be bold. Perhaps you would care to explain why the "hard-working" members of WP:TV neglected the "Lists of American television series episodes" category - a page which is supposed to be regularly maintained - to the point that it contained nearly 800 pages that needed recategorisation? Perhaps you were too busy "discussing" and "reaching consensus". May I refer you to this policy - If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. There are multiple legitimate purposes for this rule to exist. For example: It prevents Wikipedia turning into a bureaucracy where nothing happens, and helps cut down on red tape. No one can read all the rules, and it encourages people to be WP:BOLD. It means things can be done which might be against the word of the policy but passes the essence of them. It's the equivalent of "Use your common sense" – a typical example is if you think something notable that doesn't quite fit in policy is being deleted. It tries to prevent people getting obsessive and stressed over little things. Stop worrying about the little things: if you're doing things for the greater good, that's all that matters even if it turns out you were wrong. It allows for consensus to adapt over time, allowing rules to change. Furthermore, if there's anyone who is "edit-warring", it is YOU. You appear to stalk pages deliberately, waiting to aggressively revert or delete anything that doesn't adhere to your rigid interpretations of what are actually mere guidelines and remarkably, the fact that you have been warned about your conduct in the past doesn't even trip you up. There's no productive discussion to be had here. Carnelian10 (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Your continued personal attacks give me no desire to continue discussing with you. The WikiProject Television has been notified of this discussion so that other members may weigh in; if they revert your additions, and you revert them back, you will be reported to the administrators for edit-warring. I'll be aware of when this does happen not by stalking, but via my watchlist - are you aware of the concept of them? --  Alex TW 09:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The old adage - human psychology is based on projection. I have made no personal attacks. I have simply pointed out the truth. You aggressively attempt to enforce guidelines, which are petty, counter-productive and increasingly ridiculous. You have been warned - probably more than once - about your conduct. I have pointed out a Wikipedia policy to you that flatly contradicts your stance which you have chosen to ignore because it does not suit you. I am also prepared to report "edit-warring", particularly if it is carried out in an unnecessarily officious manner. The feeling is mutual - I have no interest whatsoever in interacting with you. Please go away.

Carnelian10 (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You have made multiple personal attacks her WP:NPA, and your uncivility clashes with WP:CIVIL. I would welcome you to Wikipedia, but I recommend you read up on your guidelines and policies properly first. I have pointed you to WP:CONSENSUS, a clear-cut policy which you refuse to abide. Once other editors become involved, you will be required, just as every other editor is on this site, to abide by it and not decide your own rules. If you file for edit-warring directly after any other editor reverts you, then it will be nothing but a retaliatory report, which are highly frowned upon and will not help your stance whatsoever. Good luck! You may need it. Cheers. --  Alex TW 10:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You just don't get it, do you? Reverting edits that serve no practical purpose other than to enforce some arbitrary "consensus" is perfectly reasonable. You cling so rigidly and pettily to your rulebook that you prioritise form at the expense of content, and it's precisely your attitude that drives off new editors who could potentially add something worthwhile to the articles. I have pointed out the "Be Bold" dictum of Wikipedia, which you refuse to acknowledge because it doesn't suit you. You seem determined to hammer every TV article so it all conforms to one pre-existing template, and it appears that on no occasion, do you stop to think whether such standardisation is appropriate for the specific content of that article/series. Wikipedia is a palimpsest - all articles are works in progress and as such, there should be some fluidity regarding the development of new content. If reverts happen, I can only assume that they are retaliatory in nature. I have made no personal attacks whatsoever - and it is YOU who has conducted yourself aggressively. Pointing this out is hardly "uncivil" - it's simply telling you how it is. Whilst some consistency of format is necessary for the presentation of information, the templates are there to assist editors as guidelines. I am increasingly unhappy with the idea that editors are going to be dictated to, in terms of both form and content, by what is in fact a small clique. Then again, I really cannot be bothered with this. Again, please go away. Carnelian10 (talk)


 * All good. You've been warned about your actions, so you know the future consequences. That's all that matters. Good luck, and cheers! --  Alex TW 11:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just go away. Carnelian10 (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way. WP:BOLD = guideline. WP:CONSENSUS = policy. Policy > Guideline. Jussayin'. Welcome to Wikipedia, friend! --  Alex TW 11:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not post to this page again. Carnelian10 (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Carnelian, I wanted to make good on the offer I made to your former incarnation to help you out. At times I have been as frustrated as anyone with guidelines or other editors, but we have all had to learn that keeping a cool head and avoiding uncivil behavior, no matter how warranted it may seem, is half of what makes this collaborative environment work. I'm sure you've felt frustrated or even attacked by some of the reactions to your edits, and this is understandable. However you can't jump in with drastic edits that go against existing guidelines or conventions and not expect blowback. Your arguments for certain content are valid and worth discussing, but you have to be careful about being defensive or belligerent when challenged. It is also not helpful to your position to dismiss the community or individual editors because you disagree with current conventions; Wikipedia cannot be a free-for-all, and this is what is in place at the present time after many discussions among editors. Your active participation can help the TV Project evolve if you choose to engage in a constructive way. Trying to add the same kind of information to various lists and articles when you know the community will likely challenge it is not constructive. I appreciate your hard work, your motivations, and the content you are trying to add, and I think with some compromise on your part some of it may be able to fit in nicely and still stay within established conventions. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 14:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to reply to 's comment? If you read this and revert me after I remove the content again per consensus (a policy, not just a guideline), I will assume that you don't intend to act upon it. --  Alex TW 23:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * May I refer you to the above reply to you - "Please do not post to this page again. Carnelian10 (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)" Carnelian10 (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you have no intention to discuss, yes? If so, I will be reinstating my previous edits. If you revert, this will be in extremely bad faith, and you may face a report. If you do intend to discuss civilly, including the above post from TAnthony, I'd be happy to. Cheers. --  Alex TW 00:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Please do not post to this page again." You have been asked very politely three times now. Carnelian10 (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Wentworth (season 5), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --  Alex TW 00:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Please do not post to this page again." You have been asked very politely three times now. Carnelian10 (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Now FOUR times. Carnelian10 (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are forfeiting your right to complain when you decide to force your edits into the article against MOS:TV and WP:CONSENSUS (a policy) while also deciding to refuse to discuss them. This is typical WP:OWN behaviour. --  Alex TW 00:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Get off this talk page. There is no point in interacting with you as your attitude and aggressive edits/reverts according to your own inflexible interpretation of alleged consensus indicates there is no productive discussion to be had with you. You have been asked FIVE times now not to post here. You are owning, you are edit-warring, you are passive-aggressive and I hope you receive a warning (another one) for your conduct. Carnelian10 (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Question
Are you still using this account as well? Or are you solely using your IP account now? I only ask because I, along with some other editors, have been trying to discuss some of your edits with you, without much success. You have been more responsive on this talk page than your IP talk page, but you haven't used this account for several months, while you have recently been active with your IP account. I'm just trying to determine which account will most likley respond to an article talk page request. Also, since IPs can't be pinged, please check your IP account's talk page for recent messages. Thank you. - the WOLF  child  22:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Lists of American action-adventure television series episodes has been nominated for discussion
Category:Lists of American action-adventure television series episodes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Lists of American Western television series episodes has been nominated for renaming
Category:Lists of American Western television series episodes has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)