User talk:TheRealFennShysa/Archive 5

Do you have a problem with me?
First, you back up another user's accusations of sockpuppetry and vandalism. Now, you inject yourself into another issue which does not involve you. If you have a beef with me (and I'm not sure why), then take it up with me personally. Station Agent 836 (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I backed up another user's accusations because they appeared to be true. Your edit patterns, behavior, and phrasing are remarkably similar to Rollosmokes, and I think there's a good chance that there's truth to that claim. As for "injecting" myself, you made an edit on an article that I had watchlisted - if you have a problem with other people editing articles and questioning you, then I recommend that you read this line right below "Save page" again: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." You are not above criticism, and if you make an edit I disagree with, I will make my opinion known. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What I have a huge problem with are people who believe that their word is the last word. That is the vibe I get from you.  Also, I don't know nor care who "Rollosmokes" is, but it is possible that small intricate aspects of style can be a coincidence.  I have been accurate on a bunch of things that have been recently deleted out of spite for me.  I feel that what you just did to me over the WEWS thing is spiteful.  If this continues, then my next step will be administrator assistance for wikihounding and bullying.  Have a nice day.  Station Agent 836 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. And for the record, other than doing a little research (based on accusations brought up by someone else, I might add) on your history, I've not deleted anything you've added - I have, however, corrected your mistakes in how "The WB" and "The CW" should be presented. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So those things are attributed immediately to me? All I was doing was cleaning up a mess made by a real vandal-76.6.40.246 or whatever the IP number is-because they insist on adding stuff to these articles which can be viewed as fancruft and vandalism.  I mentioned that in my edit summary (see WTXX and WWOR).  This stuff was there before you made your edits.  I noticed it and made sure all relevant information was retained.  Now, if you're all up in arms about capitalization of a phrase, then to me that's nitpicking.  Just fix it and be done with it.  But what I did was not done intentionally to spite you.  Again, as I told Neutralhomer, please get your facts right before you sentence someone.  Station Agent 836 (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You "made sure all relevant information was retained"? I don't think so - these edits show that you went back in and reverted corrections on "The CW" ater I fixed them, hiding them while reverting a so-called vandal, while claiming that you "reincorporated" my edits, when in fact, you didn't. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You just proved my point. Station Agent 836 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way? I showed that you continued to revert my fixes under the cover of reverting "vandalism" - in other words, I just shot down your point. Good-bye. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello TheRealFennShysa! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Mary Costa -
 * 2) The Unknown Comic -
 * 3) Robert Vaughan (author) -

74.71.49.124
I went ahead and submitted this IP to WP:AIV for similar vandalism on List of Disney feature films ... a two-week block just expired yesterday, so it sounds like a longer block will be necessary until this person gets over themselves and finds something else to do. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * User:PMDrive1061 blocked it for 3 months. Thanks for keeping an eye on this one. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a prob... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Portable ECG device
I would like to know why Portable ECG device was identified as Vandalism.As I was tried to restructure the article with adequate references.It was not the intention to remove the article,moreover the re direction to Electrocardiography does not suit it as it is an article about the device. Thanks --MedicineMen 00:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MedicineMen (talk • contribs)
 * Your page blanking after the redirect was the reason for the notice. As to the page itself, it duplicates a great deal of info from Medical monitor, which also uses the image you posted. I've redirected the article there, since it seems to be well covered at that link. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe medical monitor does not represent the portable ecg device,which is itself different from hospital use monitors as in the section Medical Monitors.I had to use the image from that page,so that it could be validated then using a copyrighted image from other sources.The reason for using the text was to change it at a later date,than orphaning the article.I still believe that portable ecg device is different from Medical Monitor as it is a specialized device.Also the article on Medical Monitor does not have any citations.Thanks --MedicineMen 02:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MedicineMen (talk • contribs) 02:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Spam/Vandalism
Hello. I noticed the following message on this page: PROTRAY Final Cut Pro warez with Edius 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.82.65 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC) It looks like spam or vandalism. Since it's on your user talk page, should it be deleted? Cheers! — Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb  | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 21:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what the purpose of that was... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Legened of the Seeker
Hi TheRealFennShysa. I'm not here to start an argument or a fight. You won't get trouble out of me so please have patience with me but did you really have to delete almost all of my character descriptions on Legend of the Seeker? I can understand trimming a bit but I thought the extra info was nice. I mean what about the info about Richard and Kahlan falling in love? Why did that have to go? I mean is it not very good to get in depth? Other stuff you deleted was just basic info as well. I mean I would have trimmed it myself even. I mean I'm new to wikipedia, still learning the ins and outs of the site. I only try to contribute and meant no harm... Seekeroftruth469 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As another editor pointed out to you (and as I indicated in my edit summary), your additions were taking over the article, and point-by-point descriptions of ecery major event in the series did not beling there. The information is still in the edit history - you should look into creating a separate article for character info. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was getting around to making a new article. I was just keeping the stuff already there so I could quickly copy and paste over. THEN I was going to trim the descriptions a bit. I thought it would be easier like that. I mean I had every intention of doing what the other editor suggested because I actually care about the articles I edit. You'll never see any vandalism from me.

But still even just the basic information like Richard and Kahlan falling in love and just other small basic things got deleted as well that I felt could have stayed. Anyway as I said I'm not trying to start an argument like people have given you trouble in the past. Im still learning how to make an article because I'm a newb to this site so I may need help from people. Seekeroftruth469 (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I mean any help I can get from you or anybody on learning the ropes would be great. Seekeroftruth469 (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut
Hi, I just noticed this edit from a few days ago. Was it your intention to remove the "alternate versions" section, or just to undo 169.157.76.55's vandalism of that section? Before that IP's edit, the section contained some valid seeming content. Now, I could see removing that section (it's just one notch above "trivia" and it's unsourced) so if that was intentional, no problem. I guess I'm just bringing this up on the chance that the removal was unintentional (a common accident of vandalism reverts -- removal of content that was once valid, before the vandals got to it). -- Why Not A Duck 03:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Legend of the Seeker dispute.
Ok....I'm tired of getting into edit wars....do tell me what was so wrong with the character descriptions. They werent too shirt or too long nor did they take over the article, they were just right. Why do you think you have to delete everything and just have the bare minimum. It's annoying. We need to settle this. 66.82.9.56 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I posted above, and as another editor pointed out at the article (and as I indicated in my edit summary), these additions were taking over the article (and this would only get worse over time), and point-by-point descriptions of every major event in the series did not beling there. The information is still in the edit history - you should look into creating a separate article for character info. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review the difference between a guest star and a recurring character. Blalock clearly doesn't meet the definition of recurring. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * DOesn't matter - the character (whether being played by Blalock or not) appears to be coming back - therefore that falls under recurring. Sorry you disagree. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The title of the section is recurring CAST - not characters. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not an issue now. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

IPs AFDing articles
May I draw your attention to the paragraph in WP:AFDHOWTO stating that An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I, note his reason on the the article talk page, and then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion asking for a registered user to complete the nomination. As the IP has left his deletion rationale on the talk page, and also has left a request on WT:AFD, I am uncertain about the basis of your revert and 3RR warning. Tim Song (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This user is only just now taking additional steps - he's been tagging things and leaving them hanging for days now, and doesn't seem interested in working with others. I'm uncertain as to the editor's identity, but we're obviously dealing with someone who knows how the system works, but appears to be hiding behind the anon IP address - frankly, this sets off warning bells for me. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Glenmere mansion - thanks for the help
Thanks for the edit on Glenmere mansion - I was getting ready to look for the proper way to call for help in this particular instance, but my time these days comes in small doses. I came into this page when there was warring between the editor you just addressed and an IP editor, who claims to be the owner of the mansion. If you want to keep it on your watch list, it would be handy to have another set of wikipedia-aware eyes on the article. But in any case, thanks for this step. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem - the SPA is clearly out to cause problems, and his reversions were clearly causing problems. Also, the fact that one of the sources was a *letter to the editor* of a paper set off warning flags - not sure where that falls on the reliability scale... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg
I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing, but after writing the article on Albert L. Lewis, added a note about his relationship to Steven Spielberg on his page. I saw you deleted it as unsourced, so I reentered the info, but this time included a link to a biography of Spielberg which mentions the rabbi as his teacher a number of times. I hope this now sounds good to you! I'm still learning! Resnicoff (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Scooby Doo (Character)
Hi, I'm just curious on my you changed my edit "created for Hanna Barbera Productions"...isn't that true that Iwao created Scooby Doo for Hanna Barbera Productions? Wolfdog406 (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that was technically unsourced - my changes kept your addition, but states the fact in an unambiguous way. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Crimson Skies
Well.. can you undo the work you did on the crimson skies pc game page? read below. Your argument does not make any sense. Please explain how my links refer to hacked version?

A friend sent me the following:

Thanks for trying. However, a guy called TheRealFennShysa  has undone most of your effort. His argument: "removed unsourced comments and links to hacked version" - funny thing is, I even try to promote the legal sale, ahh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.48.255.27 (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2010

Academy Award Tables
Gone with the Wind and Boys Town has these tables so why not The Shawshank Redempion, Citizen Kane and The Great Dicitator? Mr Hall of England (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't much of an argument. I didn't know about those - I'll probably take care of them too. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User Pharaway
It is my understanding that I can clean up my own talk page. Is that not true? Pharaway (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * True. However, you may NOT remove others comments on a sockpuppet investigation case. That is most assuredly NOT your talk page. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * YOu are referring to Mike Allen's post. He is posting in the wrong spot. He is posting in the accuser's area. If he has something pertinent to say, there is another space available for him. But he can not add info into the area for the accuser. Can you explain that to him. I already have and he has done it multiple times. Pharaway (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He is allowed to comment on your statements - especially in light of your recent actions, I think. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of my page
Today I received a message that my page was tagged for speedy deletion and I was instructed on how I could postpone or stop deletion of my page all together by: attempting to add to it, ask for help, or discuss why the page is valid. When I went to do so it had already been deleted. The message was sent on 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)which was only about 4 hours ago. I would like to improve my page so that it fits Wikipedia's standards but I need help with both editing it and because it has already been deleted. User talk:Damien TK 23:16 Monday,February 22, 2010 (UTC).
 * I didn't delete your page, I just tagged it for speedy deletion - it's entirely up to the administrators as to how speedy a "speedy delete" actually is. As for the page, it looked like the version you have at User:Damien TK/TG Blizzard: no offense, but I don't see how an amateur Halo 3 team is in any way notable - you have no significant coverage in reliable third party publications, and your sources are trivial mentions, at best. Best of luck with your gaming, but how is your team actually notable? Also, your article was flagged for a possible violation of the conflict of interest guidelines; if your group is truly notable, you shouldn't be writing about yourself - other editors will do that for you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I made the basic format on my use page first because that is what things I read said to do in order to familiarize your self with Wikipedia. Since as far as I can tell what I want to write about is better suited for a user page would it make the user page article stronger by expanding on, and adding things. For instance, instead of just saying "8th place" it could be expanded "8th place in North America" or being able to have it verified that it is the longest standing team? Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated since as you can tell I am very new to Wikipedia. Damien TK (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ice Age 4
Hi, I saw you deleted my contribution about a fourth film in the Ice Age film series, I'm not here to complain, but I'm not that much into Wikipedia editing (I do it more on Wikia), it was my first time using the cite web template and I definitely haven't memorized every WP:THINGY thing. Anyways, what I was wondering is whether the information I got can be added in a different way, I mean something like "A fourth film is reported to be on the works, the studio is making contracts with the voice cast" like the source says, the alternative would be to wait for an official announcement by Fox or on the Blue Sky Studios official website, but the source comes from the New York Times and I'd wish to have at least some information on it on Ice Age 3 and Ice Age film series articles. --Exrain (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

forbidden science
While leaving 5 paragraphs of threats on my talk page you don't think you could have taken the time to indicate what text in forbidden science you believe was copied from that page? The two articles don't seem very similar at all. jbolden1517Talk 02:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is Jinsy
Thanks: dealt with at WP:COIN. There was an issue of original research, but the IP blanking looked pretty bad-faith. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * hello - have absolutely no idea what i did wrong to get my wiki page cut to pieces. we made the relevant changes to make it clear it was a TV programme of fiction which was fair enough but it was another good source of information for people interested in the show to go to find out more... which i thought was the point of Wikipedia. sure it's a bit of promotion for the show but then there are loads of comedies on Wikipedia which do exactly that. What exactly was the harm in this? I don't even know what IP blanking is to be honest... what is it? did i do it? how? i'm just a total wiki novice and have no idea what that means, and if I blanked my IP then I"m sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I was rather pleased with the page, and hadn't checked back for a few days. Is this the nature of this site? Mickers Blanket
 * I think you'll find I was one who added back in some things improperly removed by the anon IP. As to the rest, Wikipedia certainly isn't a place for promotion, and a lot of the in-universe stuff on the page would have been better suited for one of the official sites for the show, since none of it had reliable sources in independent publications to indicate any kind of notability. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mickers Blanket: I'll repeat, since you don't seem to have read the comments at your user page, the key point is that everything on Wikipedia must be from previously published sources per Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Insider knowledge or backstory about Jinsy that hasn't been aired or published constitutes original research and can't be included. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I think i understand a bit clearer. You guys actually helped reinstate elements of the page that had been vandalised by an anonymous source? if that's true then thanks. I have no wish to contravene or fall foul of wikipedia's policy. I shall study the verifiability policy information and try and ensure that future edits meet these standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickers Blanket (talk • contribs) 00:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have another crack at this page sticking to information that is out there in the public domain- the current page is bland and needs more information and colour. I shall look forward to hearing / seeing whether you think it's acceptable or not. Worth noting that I am the copyright owner of all the photos that were on the page and will be reinstating some / all of them into the page as I don't believe they contravene any wikipedia conventions, though given my ignorance of all wiki lore, I may fall foul again. Mickers Blanket (talk • contribs) 08:56, 5 March 2010

Samten Karmay
Quite right. That page did involve copyrighted material. The text had been given to me by someone (not the author) who represented it as original material. Thank you for spotting the problem, I am very embarrassed. Tibetologist (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Old Dogs (film)
I have been attempting to conform the Old Dogs page to other pages of its ilk, but you have been reverting my changes. Perhaps we can discuss here.

I cleaned up the plotting, and that's stuck, because it was a disaster before. In addition, I have updated the current box office totals, and that has stuck; however, any attempts to change the "Critical Reception" section have been reverted, and you have been removing my changes. I want to find some common ground here. Now, when comparing Old Dogs to the pages of other similarly-received films, it becomes clear that the Critical Response section is nothing more than an excuse to put every witty and well-worded quip against the film onto the page. I think we can all agree that the film received dismal reviews; however, why do other films with similar reviews not have massive sections of negative critical response? Take a look at Zoom (film) for example. It received a 4% on Rotten Tomatoes yet has a much smaller section than Old Dogs. Wild Hogs, another of Mr. Becker's films, received a %14 on Rotten Tomatoes, and yet it's section is much smaller than Old Dogs'.

We obviously must keep the overall critical consensus on the film; however, we simply do not need that many reviews intended simply to ridicule the project rather than give a brief understanding of its critical reception. Can we find a way to make that work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodrockshard (talk • contribs) 08:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That all sounds very nice - except that your initial edits gutted the article, and you've inserted NPOV language ("can be considered a financial success") that appears to either whitewash the critical reception or paint a different picture. I compromised on your recent removals, as a show of good faith, but that's it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your compromise. I would really want to continue trimming down this page but I know that you have your agenda.  And I agree about your earlier changes to what I wrote -- I wanted to find whatever compromise we could reach here.  My only issue is that the section is still absolutely massive when compared to other similar sections.  The original section, it seems, was posted and updated by the Rotten Tomatoes wiki editor (CIRT), thus the emphasis on reviews as seen on the site.  But having so many really underlines that the intent is to ridicule the film rather than just giving a good idea of the negative reviews and moving on.  Why would five or six negative reviews coupled with maybe one marginally positive one (Rickey or Hammond's, neither of which is amazingly glowing) not give an accurate picture of the film's critical response?  The section could lead off: "The film received extremely negative reviews," followed by five or six examples, then one example of a positive response.  This seems more than adequate.  If you disagree, let me know.  I don't care if it's me that makes the changes, I'm just pointing out that this movie is being picked on rather than fairly represented.  It's a badly-reviewed movie, it happens.  But I think we can pare it down a little.  Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodrockshard (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bactracking on Categories
Dear RealFennShysa,

An examination of all the other film categories for decades on WP such as Category: Films set in the 1960s, Category: Films set in the 1950s etc etc etc, shows that all of them have the qualifier "but produced at a later date". It seems to me then that the remedy then is to remove both Time after Time and Superman from the list rather than make this category inconsistent with the others. I therefore reverse my vote, and once again support the removal of (both) film(s) from this category, thus agreeing with User:Xnacional (which is not typical with me.)

Very respectfully, --WickerGuy (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

ALso if you agree, don't forget to re-edit the category.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Xenon Pictures And Dolemite
Hi there - I'm the internet/web guy at Xenon Pictures. We've been working with Wikipedia to build our Xenon Pictures article and we seem to be running into some minor conflicts with you as you keep removing information as we build the page. Xenon Pictures owns the original film Dolemite and has developed an updated version with established producers Todd Garner and Sean Robins and the project is currently going to actors. Also - Xenon Pictures developed the film Straight Outta Compton working with Eazy E's widow and got the music attached to the script and set the deal up at New Line Cinema. I'm not sure why this is an issue for you and why you feel IMDB is not a reliable source. One of the writers/Executive Producers on both scripts is Leigh Savidge the president of Xenon Pictures. You can Google Leigh Savidge Dolemite or Leigh Savidge NWA biopic (That's the straight Outta Compton movie) and you'll see some sources. We can also scan the contracts for the films and send them to you or you can call New Line Cinema to confirm. Here is what is written on the IMDB page for Xenon Pictures...

Xenon Pictures, Santa Monica, CA: 1440 Ninth St Santa Monica, CA 90401 USA Profession: Producer / Writer / Director Known for: Welcome to Death Row / The Legend of Dolemite / The Return of Dolemite/Straight Outta Compton News:Update: Writers For "Straight Outta Compton" -- Gangsta Rap Gets Legitimized on the Big Screen! Biopic About N.W.A. in the Works! Oh, and "Dolemite" Remake as well! (From Manny the Movie Guy. 12 March 2009, 10:07 AM, PDT) Projects In Development - Xenon Pictures (2 titles)

The Return of Dolemite - Executive Producer, Writer (writer) 2011   Script Straight Outta Compton - Executive Producer Writer (co-writer) 2010    Script

We'd love to find a solution to this problem? We have followed the instructions given to us from a Wikipedia rep - she wrote us this note...

''We have received the permission for the text. Thank you for providing this to us, and for your contribution to Wikipedia.

Yours sincerely, Maggie Dennis''  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenon44 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem here is one of reliable sources, not to mention the conflict of interest guidelines and rules about self-promotion. If your company is notable, someone else should be writing about it, not you. IMDB is not accepted as a verifiable reliable source because it relies, for the most part, on user generated content the IMDBpro link has been removed because that it behind a paywall, is not accessible by the general public, and is therefore not useful. You need to find and cite sources from reliable publications (such as Variety or The Hollywood Reporter or any other major news outlet) if you want to keep the contested material in the article - and you should not be removing the "" tags either, as these highlight specific problems in the article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Peeking in on this conversation: while most of your concerns are reasonable and appropriate (just looking at the discussion here makes the WP:COI concerns clear), the use of IMDBPro should be fine, per WP:PAYWALL. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it wasn't even being used as a reference - it was just a bare link at the end of the article, unconnected to anything. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'd misunderstood how it was being used. I apologize. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem... :) TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello - I'm just trying to catch up to what we've done wrong here. I'm building an article about Xenon Pictures. I got copyright approval from Maggie Dennis at Wikipedia and followed the proper procedure. But then TheRealFennShysa wrote that I'm not allowed to put up that Xenon Pictures has developed several big budget studio films even though it's an important part of who the company is and I provided a link to a professional IMDB page to show it was true. This info had been approved and then TheRealFennShysa took it down. so I thought I needed more information about it so I put in the writers and producers in but TheRealFennShysa took it down again. Should I place the source links in a separate paragraph called references? I'm trying to build the article and give a full and complete picture of what the company does and who they are. Any further help would be appreciated. I'd hate to leave the article incomplete and only provide a picture of what the company achieved in the 80's and 90's...what about what they've done in the last 5-10 years? Thank you. Signed, Xenon 44. Xenon44 (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenon44 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello - regarding a similar situation with the Dolemite page. The Dolemite page was built with information provided by Xenon Pictures and has been up for many years. Why did a reference that Xenon Pictures was making an updated Dolemite movie suddenly become an issue, too? TheRealFennShysa suddenly started taking that down, too after it's been up for a long time. Xenon owns the Dolemite movies and is developing a feature film, video games, etc. Isn't it important to mention in an article about Dolemite that the Dolemite franchise is being reimagined and reborn. The Dolemite article has been up for years. Best, Xenon 44. Xenon44 (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenon44 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I (or others) can make it clearer - by giving permission to repost material from the Xenon Pictures website, that doesn't necessarily mean that it can be reposted verbatim without corrorborating evidence or citations from reliable third party publications. You have not provided those. The Dolemite article has existed since December 2004 - Xenon was not added to the article until June 2009, and even that appears to be a conflict of interest, based on the [[Special:Contributions/Awenkus|username. The IMDBpro link was just a bare link, and was not used as a specifc reference - but even so, that one is especially problematic, with the double-whammy of being behind a paywall, and being based on user-submitted content, the problem there is verifiability. As I said before, you really need to look at the conflict of interest guidelines and rules about self-promotion. If your company is notable, someone else should be writing about it, not you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I chose the name Xenon 44 I'm not an actual employee of Xenon. I've worked with them on some other web projects and got the information from them. They never had an article up on Wikipedia until I started putting up some basic info last month.   Can we look at some other articles together about film companies and entertainment corporations to compare how they mention what a company has achieved from their very beginings to present day with the very type of projects they started with 25 years ago and where it has evolved?  for example, look at Warner Brothers or New Line.  New Line mentions they're making The Hobbit which is scheduled to come out in 2011 or 2012. Would that be self promotion or an article about the company?  there are hundreds of these articles.  Are they under the same scrutiny from you or have they done something better with links and references that I can now do?  Should I pass this project on to someone less familiar with the company? Thanks so much!  I very much want to cooperate with Wikipedia.  Xenon44 (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When you call yourself "the internet/web guy at Xenon Pictures", people are going to think that you're an employee - either way, there's still a conflict of interest there. And the situation with Dolemite and The Hobbit is completely different. There over 50 references right now on the Hobbit article - that thing is incredibly well sourced, and probably not written by employees/affiliates of New Line Pictures, given the huge range of users editing not just the film articles, but the film company articles as well. The remake of Dolemite (only *two* references, btw) is still mentioned on its page - however, the reason that Xenon Pictures is not mentioned anymore is that the provided source makes absolutely no mention of the company. Neither does the link provided in the original citation. So - where's the verification? I'm sure you're an upstanding person, but you're not a verifiable source. Neither am I. Please... go read the pages on verifiability and reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Darryl Grogan
I'm just replying to your nominating Darryl Grogan for deletion. In Darryl Grogan's case he mainly does commercials and documentary pieces which are not high profile in terms of director or filmmaker recognition, (their names are not usaully associated with them) so it is very difficult for me to give you documented sources. Much of his work has aired on cable television (commercials,docs.) and he is very well known in this world. Alot of his work is also on Youtube. I know you may scof at this, but this is the only documentation I'm able to provide of what he has done. This is a very small sample of his work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpHJKZFgBs4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwXbCKetFE8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bgkfewV7eE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BVvWGGzDDc&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3yXauc5exQ Please understand too that there is a gigantic filmmaking world that extends far outside the common TV shows and the local movie theaters. IMDb will usaully cover most of that. The commercial and documentary world which is valued surprisingly more than we realize in our culture, sadly gets overlooked in terms of director recognition. I would just ask that you reconsider his article and if it does not satisfy the requirements needed, what other options would I have to have him listed with Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Daveminor (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The notability requirements apply to everyone equally - there's no "YouTube" exception - if the guy was as notable as you think, there'd be SOME kind of referencing out there. I'm not claiming the guy doesn't exist - just that he doesn't appear notable enough for an article yet. If you feel differently, make your case on the AfD page, not here - I'm not the one who will delete the page, should it come to that. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Rodgers
Actually, that edit (and all the others you just reverted) was cited to the Steinway Artist Roster, so slapping an "uncited" template on the page is a bit inflammatory.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that - but given the editor's history of spamming articles with Steinway references, I think we'll definitely need something more than a primary reference if these are to be reposted. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have placed an inquiry at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music about this very subject. In addition to my comments there, the fact that someone is listed in a company's "artist roster" does not mean they used that company's instruments exclusively.THD3 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You beat me to the punch with the board notice. Fotw has been indefinitely blocked.  Want to take odds as to when he'll be back under another name?  (He did it before.)THD3 (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

AIV report
Hey! Thanks for your AIV report. Note that, according to several sources, that studio has worked on Pixar titles (see here for an example). I believe that the editor was just trying to benefit the encyclopedia. I've left a warning on their page about this; we'll see what happens. Thanks again for reporting. m.o.p 15:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That article only mentions Pixar as another successful studio - I don't see any mention of Rough Draft working on any Pixar projects... The only traditionally animated project Pixar ever did (the Buzz lightyear TV show) was handled by Disney's TV animation arm. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. I read that in a preview tab and got the wrong impression. My apologies. m.o.p  16:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

subjective editing reply
Perhaps you should have read my entire comment before posting a reply. I said: "Don't get me wrong, if something looks out of place, then by all means edit however you see fit..." I was making the point that a certain user was making edits with the stated justification "this is better" or something similar, w/o any kind of rationale behind it. Look, of course anyone can edit however they want. I was merely suggesting that this other user OUGHT to back up "this is better"-type-edits w/ some kind of reasoning. MisterE2123three (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wimpy Kid template
I understand you reverted this template? Why this book and this other spin-off are NOT counted as five and six. Please reply after. Thanks --68.98.129.158 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is claiming that they are. However, the consensus on the talk page from registered editors is that they are quite definitely books. "Spin-off" is subjective, IMHO. Your edits also removed (through bad formatting) the creator of the series, and the fifth book shouldn't be added until a title (and article) are known. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Viacom
Hey, it's April Fools. I'm sorry you don't get my brand of humor. 71.176.183.83 (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Gyroxus
I'll clean it up. It doesn't seem that promotional sounding to begin with; it just needs a little rewording of a couple sentences. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 18:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Help
Can you help me edit this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_theatrical_film_production_companies to follow the same format as the distributors page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Theatrical_Film_Companies? It is a lot of work and I would appreciate your help.

Newt cancellation
Hey there. I've seen your work on the film articles, so I think you'd be a good person to ask this. While I do agree with your defense of Newt until something more solid appears, is SlashFilm considered a reliable source for such things? There is an article there saying Newt has been canceled, and I think that SlashFilm has been used in other articles without much quibbling. What's your opinion on it? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that Slashfilm is just repeating a rumor from The Pixar Blog, which in turn was based on an unsigned email. I'm not seeing anything official from Disney or Pixar yet... so I'm going with unsubstantiated rumors, for now... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That works ... thanks for the quick reply! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with your stance is that you have no evidence the film is still in production. EW has gone beyond the Pixar Blog and verified it. Floyd Norman stated this project was dead in February. And unless you have evidence that someone else accesses the email of Disney's Chief Archivist, that's neither "unsubantiated rumor" nor an unauthorized response. Other news sites have also reported it being off the list. You have yet to make a case for the article remaining, when the AfD discussion result was clearly to keep the information, but not the page, ie. a merge/redirect. Please reply on the article's discussion page, if not, I'll be changing it back to a redirect. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The AfD was closed as "Keep", regardless of your opinion of the vote count - and your should also remember that AfDs are not a vote. I have not tried to block any mentions of the film being cancelled - I've just made sure that the rumors are placed in the proper context. There's no reason for the page to be moved or redirected, since there has been enough coverage of the film to date to justify a separate article. You seem to be the only person with a problem with this. Why is that? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So what you're really saying is that if the discussion actually results in a "Merge" but whomever closes it says it is "Keep" then the discussion itself is moot and irrelevant. Again, the "unsigned" bit that you kept pointing out came from the Chief Archivist - are you saying that the archivist or someone using his email account would be spreading disinformation? Additionally, Entertainment Weekly's article also pointing this out went beyond the email and contacted a source at Pixar. So you're willing to simply ignore other information out there. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer Permissions
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 17:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Millenovecentonovantadieci
Hello TheRealFennShysa, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Millenovecentonovantadieci - a page you tagged - because: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Decline speedy for the play for the same reason. Please explain why you believe the articles to be hoaxes, and use PROD or AfD to pursue deletion. Regards,  (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pbs shows
I was looking at your revert from 99.66.234.226. some of those shows are correct. if you go to the main web site and go to all shows they should all be there. Wishbone (TV series)|Wishbone, Kratts' Creatures]]'' and  Design Squad (depend on where you live to get it and produced by wgbh.) are correct shows on pbs. you can always click on the show to find out what station it airs on. most of those I listed are very old shows. The other shows i do agree that they do air on other stations. just thought i would bring this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saylaveer (talk • contribs) 20:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Question
People's thoughts about outing can range from 'I'm already out' to 'meh, I don't care,' to 'OMG my reputation is destroyed!' Would you like me to delete those edits from the history of that article and talk page? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please - I've just sent a note off to the Oversight link, but if you could deal with this guy, I'd appreciate it.There's already a note on the talk page that links me, but I don't anyone needs this guys attempts to make a point} hanging around - especially when it's so clearly intended to be harrassment. Thanks! [[User:TheRealFennShysa|TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's done.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUTING
As a courtesy, I have deleted the user Commator's edits of that article from the public log. I will be keeping an eye on them now. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Caught the talk page edits, too. Sneaky @#%$... ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Toy Story list
With this edit to List of Toy Story characters, you reinserted a link to youtube and removed valid tags. Whatever you think of the removal of unsourced, opinion and OR (apparently you are against it since I assume you looked at what was removed and not just the size of the removal before reverting two of your fellow editors), at the very least this part of the reversion was inappropriate. Feel free to explain why this unsourced material should stay and the tags should not at Talk:List_of_Toy_Story_characters. Novaseminary (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wicket Wystri Warrick
I've seen you've changed my link with a directly link to List of Star Wars characters, and also with this question: "and that middle name comes from where?"

First of all, I've just removed the (stupid) link to Wicket and used the (for me) most useful link Wicket Wystri Warrick, which also redirects to List of Star Wars characters. I don't know where this middle name come from, but I've searched for it and found it in the book The Essential Guide to Alien Species (ISBN 0345442202) (page 38). --Choas (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Crist
Hi, you don't appear to have been involved in any of the discussion at all, please consider the lengthy discussion that pre dates your revert and feel free to read and join in the discussion at the BLPN. If this is an issue you have previously been involve in or you can bring a new perspective to the discussion that is great, thanks. Please do not simply add to the rising edit war without joining in the discussion. If you have been involved in the discussion please provide me with the diffs thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced trivia spamming
It seems the 2 IPs are very similar in their editing patterns.--IGeMiNix (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's been a rash of them from several related IPs.... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, fun stuff, always having to revert and add warnings on their pages. --IGeMiNix (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

AIV page mistake
Shoot, that was a mistake. I'm sorry about that. - PM800 (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Tom & Jerry unsourced trivia vandal
I have semiprotected all of the articles touched by 86.157.78.170, and also blocked that IP for a while. If more articles are attacked I can semiprotect those too. (Though I would prefer not to have to, as doing a lot of them is tedious.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Eight more articles semi-protected. How many of these damned T & J articles are there? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Animation
Hi Fenn,

I noticed that you have twice removed the Hanna-Barbera section from the Warner Bros. animation and comics template. Your edit summary on the second removal agreed that Hanna-Barbera is "owned by Tim/Warner" but "technically not part of Warner Bros. Animation". This is not the case. Hanna-Barbera is not just owned by Time/Warner but is part of Warner Bros. Animation; it was fully absorbed in 2001. Check out the Hanna-Barbera article for details. I do feel that it is important to include the Hanna-Barbera section on the template. Do you have remaining objections to including the section? Neelix (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I feel that saying that Hanna-Barbera is part of Warner Bros. Animation is an over-simplification - perhaps one link for a "See Also" would be appropriate, but added in one huge chunk, it makes the entire template too big. Also, as these were added by an editor who rarely edits, and his edits (adding WB templates to HB articles) makes it appear that these have *always* been WB productions - this is misleading at best, since the majority of the additions are historically HB characters and productions that, in all likelyhood, WB will never touch again under their own banner. We have a separate template for HB things, and that is sufficient. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Fenn,
 * Where is the "separate template for HB things"? I haven't been able to find one myself.
 * Neelix (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh - there was one at one point... but since that seems to have disappeared, use this: Template:Hanna-Barbera. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To claim or even imply that Hanna Barbera Cartoons are created by Warner Bros. qualifies as pure propaganda, which I myself am totally against the idea. Unfortunately I can't located the HB template, only lists, but either way, it's simply no excuse to insert falsifications into the articles. Might I suggest that for the WB templates the HB cartoons be labelled as "Cartoons Hosted by Warner Bros." since they are presently, don't you agree?Deltasim (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Question
Why did you revert the syfy logo from the official image back to the original one where the official logo png image was not yet found? Totalaero (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Who says that's any more official than the image currently on the page? They brand themselves with "Imagine greater" just about everywhere - frankly, that imahe just looks better, and other editors seem to agree. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * [[file:syfylogo.png|50px]] is official because it is the current LOGO OF THE NETWORK, it is the same logo used as a watermark on all it's TV shows, the "Imagine greater" is a tagline which can be simply added to the template but ill stop trying to help the syfy page because it looks like you all refuse to do things the right way. Totalaero (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah - we're all wrong - only you are right. Gotcha. Good luck with your other adult relationships. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

SNR Denton
You tagged this article as having been deleted via a deletion discussion, however I can't find any such Afd. Do you know of one? Fribbler (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it was speedied a few days ago for blatant advertising. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD doesn't apply to speedys or Prods, only to Afds. The recreated article appears to address the spam concerns, so I'm happy enough to let it stay. Fribbler (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

ToonHeads edits
As you may know, I have added the episode list for ToonHeads. This info was previously available on the show until it was removed in 2008 by IP vandalism. After I restored this section, the sources given to the show's 1st and 2nd season episodes were added, but you subsequently removed it, claiming it was still unsourced. Can you please explain exactly what you considered unsourced? --98.254.83.35 (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Neutron Deletion
I just wanted to reply to the problem with the link I posted on the Jimmy Neutron Page. The link I was providing was not intended to be a soap box or a promotional advertisement. I was really posting it as a link for further information. The site has more information that Wikipedia does not have listed. Lilgoode2shoes (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

r.e. Deletion from Films released in 2001
I appreciate that the info is available in the page links but if all people see is a list of titles with no accompanying info there would be little or no temptation to click on the links. What do you think? (walkingtalkingmammal (User talk walkingtalkingmammal|talk]])Walkingtalkingmammal (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon censorship
I need a little help figuring out what's going on at Fraidy Cat (film). So last week I blocked an IP that was mostly removing censorship sections from articles. Today, I blocked an different IP for requesting one be removed from Fraidy Cat, assuming per WP:DUCK that it was the same individual. However, I notice that the currently blocked IP was actually edit warring with the originally blocked IP. Can you shed some light on this? (IGeMiNix already [took a shot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IGeMiNix#Cartoon_censorship] at answering this, but suggested I contact you as well). OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There've been several IPs edit-warring on these articles - either inserting massive tracts of unsourced trivia, or when chanllenged, going in and making WP:POINT edits by removing sourced content. It's kinda insane, but I try to keep an eye on them... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been a lot of disruption by an IP-hopping vandal, and some by other IP editors. I have been involved in dealing with the IP-hopper several times, and 98.254.83.35 does not look to me like the same person. There are problems with this editor, notably edit warring, but it seems to me that it is a good faith editor, unlike the other ones. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Will you please block the editor who keeps vandalizing ABC Kids (US)?
Will you please block the editor who keeps vandalizing ABC Kids (US)? He's very annoying!! AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a comment, TheRealFennShysa is not an admin. To report vandalism, please do it at WP:AIV. Thanks.-- iGeM  iN  ix  21:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP has been blocked.-- iGeM  iN  ix  21:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry semi-protection
I may not be one of these several IPs that submits any type vandalism into these pages any of these pages, even though you had undone some old edits I've done to several of them, but I have noticed that User:JamesBWatson has semi-protected all Tom and Jerry cartoon articles, except for the article of the series itself and The Mansion Cat. Since he has semi-protected his own talk page, could you ask him to do the same to those two pages? --98.254.83.35 (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My talk page is no longer semi-protected, and this editor has now posted to my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Scooby Doo (Character) "Sexuality"
I see your point but how does this paragraph on their sexuality (or orientation) improve the article? I mean the "source" or documentation/publication for this paragraph can't be counted because it is based on opinion rather than fact. This publication is not reliable and official. And the fact is that Scooby and Shaggy are not homosexual in any way so in away there is no need to have this paragraph in there. Wolfdog406 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My competitor and I seem to be in an editing war. Could you please put a stop to this?
My competitor and I seem to be in an editing war. Could you please put a stop to this? Thank you very much. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would if I could - but I'm not an admin, and I was away for the weekend... :) TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about the struggle with The Wolfman (2010 film), i felt that it should be known that Gene Simmons, David Lee Roth and others contributed. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:37 09 November 2010 (UTC)

how do I create my own wiki pages on information that I want to inform people about ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear620 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge AFDs?
It's about your today's AFDs for video "collections" - shouldn't these noms be merged in one, if it's not too late? I mean, how many people who don't have a stake in these articles will be willing to rubberstamp each AFD with the same verdict?

Cheers, East of Borschov 10:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Laserdisc
You deleted my description of the idea that led to the Laserdisc. How can one closer to the source than the very originator of the idea, which is me Jan de Vries? Why not ask before you delete? What do you suggest I do? Jan de Vries Underhill (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC) jdevries@together.net
 * Your personal opinions and alleged history are not reliable sources - we have no way of determining that you are who you claim to be, or that your claims can be verified. I would suggest you take a look at these guidelines concerning reliable sources and verifiability. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Two persons would be able to verify my story. One, Siniat Diemer passed away. The other is Klaas Compaan; he holds the patent to a spiral of photos on a disc. I lost contact with him; he might be dead as well. What I contributed is not more than an anecdote; it does not have any impact on the rest of the whole development history. Why not leave it and add the note that this is no more than the report of someone who asserts that he was involved? I do not know how much explicit history writing there is about Philips Electronics; it might be possible to find my name as head of the Philips Center of Educational Research; (1965-1974?) This group was not part of the Physical Research Laboratories ("Natuurkundig Laboratorium") but of the Human Research Department. In 1974 I became Head of the Management Training Group. In 1997,in preparation for retirement I moved to Vermont with my American wife. Currently, November 2010 I happen to be in NYC; would it help if we met in person? Wouldn't it be a pity if this anecdote gets lost? Jan de Vries Underhill (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am interested in this anecdote, and sympathetic to the concerns you raise, but Wikipedia's guideline about no original research is clear. It says that you cannot publish your personal anecdotes for the first time on Wikipedia. Instead, they must be published elsewhere in a reliable, verifiable medium. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No. It was decided while reliable not to add it.
No. It was decided while reliable not to add it. You have totally misunderstood what was decided on. Don't add Dennis's views to articles unless other people have expressed similar ones. JDDJS (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I see that *you* decided that it shouldn't be allowed. The consensus from established editors and admins at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard shows more thought. You are incorrect. I will not edit war over this, but you *are* incorrect. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It was decided that it is a valid source, but should not carry its own section. "I think the ultimate aspect here is WP:UNDUE. In the Pinky and the Brain article, Dennis' viewpoint is the only one provided about the sexuality of the characters - without any other comparison or sources, its undue to include that.  But on the case of Spongebob, where Dennis is one voice among several, it seems reasonably ok - as long as we accept it otherwise as a reliable source.--M ASEM  (t) 22:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)"

If you want to add it to Spongebob go ahead. JDDJS (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The actual consensus of the WP:RS noticeboard page is that the "UNDUE" discussion was out of the scope of the RS noticeboard. No blanket resolution on whether the source is UNDUE or not could be reaches at WP:RS noticeboard. Whether a source is UNDUE or not for a particular subject is something determined at the specific article talk page.
 * I communicated this to JDDJS and Judgeking. As for Masem I contacted him specifically about the Pinky and the Brain issue.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Proof for the Vampire Diaries novel page
This is the third time now I've asked for you to tell me what you need me to do in order to prove that some of the content on The_Vampire_Diaries_(novel_series) has been stolen from Vampire-Diaries.net. Myself, my co-siterunner and the individuals involved with our wiki are extremely upset. I am happy to provide proof, I WANT to provide proof to get this sorted. I've already shown you the timestamped articles that at the very least clearly show the 'minor characters' section not being in existence on the wikipedia article until the 15th November 2010 and edited in by TwilightFanx23, while our article was last edited in April 2009, so we CAN'T have taken the text from wikipedia. If this is not good enough in your eyes, then PLEASE tell me what proof you require. As it stands right now, I'm left thinking that you don't actually care about this, or the fact that I'm willing to do the work to prove that the content is ours and should be removed. RedVDN (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute with anonymous user
Hey, I just want to let you know that the anonymous user (User talk:12.107.43.70) you have been in a dispute with has been removed from WP:AIV without being blocked. Please try to communicate with the user and assume good faith. They are not trying to be disruptive or vandalize, but are trying to add information to the encyclopedia that they feel is important. Please discuss the edits with the user in a non-templated fashion and on the article's talk page. Thanks and happy editing!  Malinaccier ( talk ) 00:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Cousin Bette
I recently made a page for the film version, but i didn't realise that it was the only film made of it. Could you possibly move it from Cosuin Bette (1998 film) to Cousin Bette (film)? If you can, thanks. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 17:02 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The Big Snooze
TheRealFennShysa I'm writing you because the version of the big snooze that you keep reverting to is incorrect. In the big snooze "In Elmer's nightmare, Bugs liquefies him, then pours the liquid Elmer" this does not ever happen, that is my problem with what you are changing. If you don't believe me then I can send you an avi version of the cartoon or you can look it up online. I hope you do not feel I'm trying to be rude because that is not my intent on writing you but I just want the article details to be correct (as I have done my research and the edits are not my opinion), if you would like to talk further about this feel free to send me a message, thank you for your time and have a great day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z-oneofall (talk • contribs) 16:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've viewed the cartoon and updated the plot section accordingly. However, your edits also re-added a great deal of original research, in addition to removing the "See Also" section - this is unacceptable. Please do not do so again. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Lost
I deleted the awards-section of the Lost-article as it doesn't feature references and the information it provides can be found on the awards-article of the show. Nuhr (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be what you think, but that is unfortunately not true - there are quite a few references in that section, which is why your removal was reverted. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dennis source developments
Hi! User:JDDJS said he's going to start a general post about the Dennis source at the Fringe theories noticeboard - please keep your eyes peeled. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Beaton Institute
Hi, why was the Beaton Institute page redirected to the Cape Breton University page? I understand that it is within the university but it is open to, and used by, people outside of the university - general public and scholars alike. It is also not mentioned on the CBU page, and it being one of the largest archives in Atlantic Canada, shouldn't it be represented on Wikipedia? Thank you. Dpgouthro (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi-professional football
I've put up a discussion on semi-pro football at WikiProject American football/Semi-professional football discussion. You appear to have edited articles in the semi-pro arena in the past and are invited to participate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Mid Continental Football League
What do I need to do to get the MCFL page back? How do I get the history so I don't have to re type and research everything again! And why is there a witch hunt for semi pro? These pages have been up for YEARS and now they are being targeted? I don't get it!
 * passing by you can learn more about a process called "userfication" at WP:USERFY, where you can request an administrator restore the pages to your workspace where you can further develop those pages. I would support such a move on these articles for you or anyone else who is enthusiastic about editing them, but you will need to become more civil in your requests if you want to have success.  I'd restore them to your userspace myself, but I'm not an admin and don't have the authority.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here - I'm not an admin, so I can't restore anything for you. You really should have archived them when it was obvious that the AfDs were not going your way, but you can ask the closing admins to copy them for you. However, I don't see you being allowed to recreate them anytime soon, as reliable sourcing for these articles is just not there, and they'll just be deleted again, and probably faster, if they're recreated in substantially similar forms. As to why now, the page for EliteMCFL came up on a conflicy of interest watchlist, which led me to the articles. It doesn't matter how long they'd been up before someone noticed them - if they don't appear to meet the necessary qualifications for notability, someone's eventually going to nominate them for deletion. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

See here.
I did explain, on the talk page. See here:. The talk page just links to this talk page. I'm reverting to my edit. Evil Genius77 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Same spammer different name?
You may wish to look further into these contributions. I am out the door and may not be back for several weeks. Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom & Jerry vandal
I have seen your message on my talk page. I will try to find time within the next 24 hours to go through the tedious task of semi-protecting dozens of articles, but unfortunately I don't have time right now. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It turns out that most of them are still semi-protected from last time. Clearly the vandal has targeted the minority where the protection has run out. However, I have now semi-protected the ones that weren't already covered (let me know if you find any I've missed) and I have also extended the protection on most of those already protected until a later date. There are just a few that are still set to lose protection on 11 January. I will try to find time to extend protection on these too, but right now, having spent over an hour on this, I'm leaving them. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help - I know it's a pain, but maybe these kids will eventually give up... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)