User talk:Interrobamf/archive zero

Shortround
You put a speedy delete tag on the article. However in that case the speedy refers to an entire article that was created in the last 24 hours. In a case like this article all you need to do is revert back to the bit without the copyvio in it. But this article was a ccopyvio right from the start. So I have removed that paragraph. If there is more then you can just remove it yourself. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding four tags to User talk:Mathewignash was a bit much and I have removed three of them and I left them a warning and explantion. At the same time could you pleas tone down the edit summaries. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with situations like this
In this case, it probably would have been better to advise the user on his talk page that fair use images are not allowed. While they are a legal issue, letting them remain for a few hours while it is resolved amicably is not a serious problem and is better than reverting and threats of blocking, so that people feel less like they are attacked by someone they think is messing around with their user page. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipolicy.
Where exactly is this wiki policy that doesn't allow articles to start with 'the', like The Patriots? --Jasonflare 03:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversion
Per WP:3RR (and since this is now your 3rd reversion) I strongly suggest you take your opinion to the Dark Vader talk page. - jc37 23:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories on Lord Voldemort
Hi Interrobamf, we seem to have a little dispute on which categories Lord Voldemort belongs in. Rule #2 of the subsection of the page which you pointed me to reads: 'An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article.' While I understand that this is your rationale for removing many of the categories on his page, and this does contradict the edit summary I gave before you re-reverted it, there are other factors to take into account. Rule #1 reads: 'Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles.' Suppose I am looking at Category:Harry Potter characters, one of the categories you removed from his page, and that I know absolutely nothing about Harry Potter. How, then, am I supposed to learn of Lord Voldemort by looking at the category page? How am I going to find other magicians, other personifications of evil, and other racists, along the same vein? Rule #7 reads: 'Bend the rules above when it makes sense, but only if no other solution can be found.' The solution to 'sum up' a number of categories into one main category makes no sense whatsoever, because the Category:Death Eaters does not have subcategories of any of the ones I have just mentioned above. Incidentally, Voldemort isn't a Death Eater anyway, his followers are. Therefore, I am still of the opinion that the version before you removed the categories should stand. Regards, Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 02:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Interrobamf, I wanted to let you know I still have not added the old categories back to the Lord Voldemort page because I'm waiting to hear from you. Wondering if you have any new thoughts. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 03:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All right, I see now that Category:Death Eaters is a subcategory of the categories which you removed, something I was unaware of before. My personal opinion is that it does not belong there, because Category:Suspension bridges is a "child" of Category:Bridges, while Death Eaters and the categories to which it is a "subcategory" are simply related terms. I'll see what consensus we can reach on this. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 14:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just been reading WP:SUBCAT and I am quite convinced that everything in that guideline pertains to the matter here, most particularly this sentence: "In a sense the subcategories are related categories and not actually part of the same hierarchy." This is by no means a hierarchy to whom Death Eaters have fallen as a subcategory. Therefore, I am going to reinsert the categories as they stood originally. If you still feel different than I about this, I am happy to discuss this further; however, I feel that this guideline has perfectly outlined the situation at hand. Best, --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 19:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting and moving
While the word "The" isn't usually included in titles of articles, it is when it is an important part of the subject's name. Your moves regarding The Huntsman may therefore have been erronous. Regardless, it made a little cloud of dust at WP:AN, if you do moves on a large scale, it's a good idea to discuss it first.

Regarding redirects like Mr. Pettibone and those locations. It appears you didn't merge any content when you did that, which resulted in the loss of information. Make sure you transfer any relevant content to the other article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When I saw your removal of the cats from Scar, the diff didn't show it was already in a more detailed cat and you make a good point about The. Still, I remain convinced, just redirecting without any sort of merging of the content on a page is not a good idea. If you put a note on the talk page of the article you redirected to and tell the regulars some non-fancruft may be hiding in the merged article, that should be enough. I don't expect you to do all the merging yourself. - Mgm|(talk) 12:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rules and policies
Please make sure you fully understand rules and policies before trying to apply them. Policies must be fully understood and you must keep in mind that there's special exceptions to policies. Yes, it's true that content must be sourced *IF* it deals with something that someone will read and won't say "that's obvious", too, but in cases of which something is written that anyone can look and simply agree with, then there's no need for sourcing, especially when citing "SAMPLES", like I said in the Madame Medusa talk page, there's plenty of example-giving in many articles that cannot and are not sourced, so please, consider that, return you-know-what to its place and simply understand once and for all that that little piece of information is nowhere said to be "factual and true", it is there to aid readers in understanding the matter. If not, I am confident enough to notify the top Wikipedia elites and you'll surely lose such silly case. Thank you, good afternoon.

Thank you for experimenting with the page DiZ on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Hello32020 02:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No
No i did not I apologize. Hello32020 02:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle Royale
Is there a reason as to why you deleted all those Battle Royale articles? (ie: Shiroiwa Junior High, Mitsuko's Hideout, etc.) (Bishusui 04:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC))

Please!
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Gl e n 13:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you!!! :) Gl e n 13:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent Redirects
Hi, I was asked to look at some recent redirects you've done, for instance Megalon, and many others... I think it might be a good thing to discuss turning a whole article into a redirect before you actually do so. Maybe you have and I wasn't aware of it. Perhaps you might want to consider using mergefrom and mergeto to spark discussion before you carry the deletion of content out to gain consensus. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop the edit warring on Sartorius (Yu-Gi-Oh! GX) and resolve the issue on the talk page. Both you and User:Bobabobabo have exceeded 3 reverts, so please consider this an official warning and start talking like people (not through edit summaries) right now. Thank you, Misza 13 21:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also try to use civil edit summaries... spot checking a summary suggests that you could be more collegial. If you talk politely on the talk page you'll have far better results than if you just revert things. I'm aware and am monitioring as well. Misza13 has it exactly right. ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop edit warring on Kaiba Corporation and resolve the issue on the talk page. Both you and User:Bobabobabo have exceeded 3 reverts, so please consider this an official warning and start talking like people (not through edit summaries) right now. Taiyou-BitetheLung (18:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

If you think an article doesn't belong
If you think an article related to a fictional series doesn't belong on Wikipedia, BUT others contest what you do, DO NOT CONTINUE REVERT WARRING WITH THEM! Instead, list the said articles on Articles for deletion. WhisperToMe 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)