User talk:Duggy 1138/Archive 1

Generic Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Basique Issues
Hello, Duggy,

I just wanted to commend you on how well you handled your issues with Basique. You expressed yourself directly but with civility, then also spoke up when others kept dragging it out after you'd already settled your issue with Basique. Well done. Doczilla 09:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I made mistakes, he made mistakes. I'm not going to ask someone to behave better than me.
 * Duggy 1138 09:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pages..
Hey.. Dont worry about loosing content as it is all stored in the pages history (click the timestamp in the history tab) ;) Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk· contribs· count · email) 23:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see :-) Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk· contribs· count · email) 00:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea, I've got it watchlisted.. I just dont really watch it carefully (hehe) - Generally I think it should be redirected (not deleted!) and all major parts turned into prose.. my opinion on the subject as a whole (as alot of the BSG articles need lots of work) is that:

and the prose put into Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining), having 1 page and not 3 makes it easier to manage and keep cruft free etc.. etc. (Dont expect any replies from me till morning as im off to bed now, hehe.. 00:20 here ;)) Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk· contribs· count · email) 00:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)
 * Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)
 * should both be located at: Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining) (there both the same continuity..)
 * I dont mind doing the work as we can do it over a period of time, I also dont mind much fighting a battle if it means we can have much more structured/and better articles. Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk· contribs· count · email) 13:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars canon.
(Note to readers of this thread: Wookieepedian is a sock puppet of Adamwankenobi. Hehe, he calls himself a wanker.) Duggy 1138 13:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lucas Licensing determines what is and isn't canon, and they have confirmed that the holiday special and all TV productions ARE canon. End of story. And of course they want to make money. It's a business. Businesses tend to do that sort of thing. Please stop reverting. The Wookieepedian 06:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WTF? How did the prequels negate the television productions? The only one that they caused problems with was the Droids series, which was fixed last year with a retcon. But, on to the point. Lucas clearly says in the foreward to the 1996 re-printing of Splinter of the Mind's Eye that he looks at the Expanded Universe as a continuation of his stories, simply other authors' ways of doing Star Wars. Whether or not he supports it for business reasons is irrelevant. He doesn't consider it part of his story, but he does consider it part of the overall Star Wars universe. Please stop pushing your POV on this issue. The Wookieepedian 09:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, how in the hell am I going to get this through your head? Let me break this down for you:


 * Yes, the holiday is despised by Lucas, yet Lucas Licensing, THE ONES WHO DETERMINE CANON, have still incorporated it into canon. Lucas will NEVER release it, yet its basic storyline is still part of canon. The holiday special cartoon still fits.


 * The Ewoks and Droids cartoons were executive produced by Lucas, who supervised their creation. When making the prequels, he made a mistake and contradicted the events of the DROIDS series. At the same time, he also contradicted the original films. I guess we should kick those out of canon as well. HOWEVER, Lucas Licensing created a retcon for the Droids series explaining that R2 and 3PO were lost from the Tantive IV for some time between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope, but eventually tracked down by Bail Organa and returned to him. EWOKS, on the other hand, was NEVER contradicted at all.


 * In addition to the fact that Lucas personally WROTE the Ewok films, they were never contradicted either.


 * The Clone Wars series was never contradicted (although another EU source, Labyrinth of Evil, did accidentally come into conflict with it, and the people at licensing are in the process of fixing that).


 * Trust me on all of this. I am one of the hardest of hard core fans. The Wookieepedian 12:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you are again pushing your POV on this. It seems almost futile to argue with you. But listen, Lucas Licensing dtermines canon. Lucas hired them for that very reason. If you cannot comprehend this, then you are being stubborn. I'm getting sick of arguing with you. NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING has been contradicted that hasn't been retconned. Lucas considers it all canon. You can take it or leave it, but don't go inserting your opinions into articles, m'kay? The Wookieepedian 13:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Please, talk this out at Talk:Lengths of science fiction film and television series instead of continuing to revert each other.   —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Teen Titans
Please wait till consensus is reached before doing anything drastic (like your splitting of the Titans into a team article and a series article). Thank you. Kusonaga 08:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is true, but if you would wait just a little more, it'd save you unnecessary work. I think the best route now is to first focus on cleaning up the Titans article as it is, without making splits or anything like that. Kusonaga 10:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, I incorporated all of the discussion points that I gleaned from it. The only addition I made was the Team Titans page. Secondly, if clean-up is done right, we'll get a nice little page the moment the split occurs. There won't be any extra work to be done. And yes, I know you did little work, which is why I put a message on your talk page, to prevent you from doing any more, before it is considered redundant. Kusonaga 10:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Donna Moss
As the comment above that section of the text state, you need a citation for any new entry in it (This was a consequence of the article's creation from the ashes of Fonzie syndrome. The concern was that such articles would attract unverifiable fancruft and become useless; I promised to watch this article closely and demand sources for any new entries when I created it). Daniel Case 15:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Best Songs" dispute
Obviously I disagree with you regarding whether supplemental references have a place here. However, this is really not a big deal to me, so I am more than happy to leave it as it is in the name of a spirit of collegiality and cooperation -- I certainly wouldn't want my account to be associated with making mountains out of molehills. Hope you have a good day. Mister Nice Guy 15:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should say more about why I see supplemental sources as perhaps valuable. Sometimes the notability of the source that labeled the song the "best ever" may be ambiguous. For example, I added Thunder Road, which was called the "best ever" by # "WXPN's 885 All Time Greatest Songs Countdown List"

I obviously consider this to be a reasonable source (just like some of the magazines, etc I have never heard of but which are cited on this list). But for these more questionable sources, wouldn't it help remove this ambiguity re notability if we had evidence that notable sources, while not agreeing that the song is the "best ever", placed it in the pantheon of great songs? I mean (and I am making up these sources) if WXPN says Thunder Road is the best ever but we are not sure if WXPN really matters, but then Rolling Stone says it is number 6, the New York Times says 8, some notable British magazine says number 3, and VH1 called it the "best song about growing up", wouldn't everyone be a little more confortable keeping the song on this list based on the moderately questionable WXPN primary source? I guess the core of my view is that wikipedia is more useful and more credible when we err on the side of over-citing versus the under-citing. Just a thought. Mister Nice Guy 04:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Phantom
Whatever the article superhero says, you still have to abide by the rules of Wikipedia. You cannot cite another Wikipedia article. You have to cite an authoritative, outside, third-party source. Please see Verifiability which says at the very top, in boldface there: '''The policy: It also says (boldface below mine): Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources [NOT other Wikipedia aricle] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources."
 * 1) Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
 * 2) Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
 * 3) he obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.'''

I have tried to explain this on The Phantom talk page. Kit Walker has tried to. You ignore consensus, yuou ignore Wikipedia polcies and guidelines, and you refuse to work responsibly with other editors. If you continue to ignore Wikipedia rules abour proper sourcing and citation, I'm going to the Admins and I will seek to have you blocked. This has gone far enough. --Tenebrae 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)