User talk:SuperJew/pre 2013

disambig pages
Thank you for your interest in improving wikipedia. Please keep in mind that disambiguation pages have specific format; in particular, they don't use wikilinks, see disambiguation for various rules. By the way, your note on your user and talk pages about clicking is incorrect: I may click at whatever day I want; it is you who will not answer. Please don't impose your religious preferences on other people. - Altenmann >t 16:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not imposing on anyone. I am politely asking not to contact me on Saturday and Jewish holidays, and explaining why you wouldn't get an answer. --SuperJew (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

House
I didn't delete. I redirected the majority of them because they were almost entirely trivia and plot summaries, with no reliable secondary sources. Per WP:EPISODE, it is very rare for an episode to be notable to the point of warranting a separate article. Per WP:EPISODE, it's generally considered acceptable to redirect non-notable episodes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cresix (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and adding unsourced trivia
You source trivia the same way you source everything else on Wikipedia. Read WP:V and WP:RS. For an example of how this is done with another form of fiction (a film) see Pulp Fiction; or for a book, see The Colorado Kid; it's done the same way with a TV series. EVERYTHING that is challenged MUST be sourced on Wikipedia. And your edits have been challenged multiple times as unsourced.

Now, for the issue of your edit warring. You have been given numerous requests to source your edits. You have instead simply reverted unsourced. Note that there is more to edit warring than 3RR violation. See WP:EW. If you revert one more time (repeat ONE more time; not three, not two: ONE) without providing sources, we will be discussing this at WP:ANI. Cresix (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * that is the most idiotic thing ever. so you source something and the thing you source is sourced by? eventually you get to a source which isn't sourced by something else. it is a conclusion/statement made by someone based on his understanding of the universe. why can't that first place be wikipedia? --SuperJew (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "that is the most idiotic thing ever": Consider this a warning about personal attacks. Comment on the article rather than suggesting that editors are idiots. Cresix (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't think the editors are idiots, necessarily. I was saying the whole idea of sourcing cultural reference is idiotic.
 * --SuperJew (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a legalistic slippery slope that is sometimes used (with little success) by editors who are in the midst of personal attacks. If I were to say your idiotic addition of unsourced trivia was written like a moron would write, there's wouldn't much doubt that I'm suggesting that you are an idiot and a moron. My main point is to watch your words and not step over the line. Cresix (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Your recent editing history at Everybody Dies (House) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dpanel (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have violated 3RR. Do you want a block?
 * "Since TV episodes are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable". Dpanel (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect blanking
Hi, if you have an issue with a redirect that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, please take it to Redirects for discussion rather than blank the page as you did with Echinopsis chamaecereus. Thanks! -- KTC (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)