User talk:TheRealFennShysa/Archive 6

Saruman
You've recently reverted some of my edits on the Saruman page. For now I'll let some drop, but I'll list a few minor edits here, and you can tell me if you have any problem with them:

1) Colin Manlove's statement under the "involvement in themes" is irrelevant, and untrue to an extent

2) In the second para of the intro, there's a sentence "The name Saruman means "man of skill". This point is repeated under the "Names" section, and it breaks the continuity of the para itself. I see no harm in removing it.

3) Then there's a sentence "In 1954's The Fellowship of the Ring...". What kind of grammar is this? It sounds as though 1954 is the name of the author. Any harm in changing it to "The Fellowship of the Ring (1954)?" Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Disney theatrical animated features
I'm curious about this change. You've restored all of the three problems I tried to avoid in my previous revert of the changes by the non-communicative IP editor, and which I noted in my edit summary (tom and jerry unsourced, wrong links for upcoming films, no rationale for date format changes) as well as other arguably good changes. I have no opinion on the date format change (other than noting that using this compact ISO date format seems to be acceptable in tables per WP:MOS), but several of the other changes since that old version are definitely good. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you intentionally removed my message when archiving your messages for 2010. I hope you don't mind me restoring it here. I see you've now restored some of the changes again. I'll comment on these point by point:
 * As noted above the ISO date format is acceptable in tables, see WP:DATESNO. Like I said, I have no preference, but claiming the full date is required per WP:MOS is incorrect.
 * While Kokurikozaka kara is unsourced on this list, it is not unsourced at the link target, so removing it seems inappropriate.
 * The reference for the one film you restored is of course appropriate, but it is less important now that that film has been released, given that this lists tends to only have references for release dates of unreleased films.
 * The removal of the "wide release" date for The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad does seem appropriate per the target article.
 * I don't know off-hand if your removal of the word "theatrical" is appropriate. Someone should check that.
 * I don't know if your addition of the production company Walt Disney Animation Studios for Roadside Romeo is appropriate, but I'd assume not, since the target article doesn't mention it.
 * I don't wish to edit war with you, I just want to make sure we don't remove good changes in our hurry to revert. --Mepolypse (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you don't disagree with the above, will you please self-revert these changes in the article? --Mepolypse (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you've chosen not to respond, but you may want to know that this conversation has been moved to Talk:List of Disney theatrical animated features, where another editor has also commented. --Mepolypse (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to Star Wars Lego on main Star Wars page
I wouldn't call being at the very bottom of the page, along with things like 'Jedi Census' and 'Star Wars physics' that prominent really. And there's quite a lot of amount of canon and expanded universe stuff in the (dozens and dozens of) Lego sets and videogames. If this isn't a good place, how about a licensees page with links to Lego and books and the Kenner figures and so on? Grahamwest (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures (DIC Entertainment)‎/Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures (Hanna-Barbera)‎
I created the two articles "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures (DIC Entertainment)‎" and "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures (Hanna-Barbera)‎" so it's hard for me to be objective about this, but it was after a lot of investigation into the shows, I felt they were two different shows. I e-mailed various people involved in the production of the two shows to make sure my facts were correct, I checked carefully how these things are normally treated on Wikipedia, and concluded that two articles make most sense, to me it seems that


 * they had totally different production companies
 * they had totally different distributors
 * they had totally different casts
 * the animation was done by different people

the only thing they had in common was that they are about the same thing,

My thinking was if we used this approach, surely these two articles would be merged also:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_%281987_TV_series%29
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_%282003_TV_series%29

As I see it they were two totally different shows, even the types of episodes were different - in the HB version they just traveled in time whereas in the DiC version they went into space, into books, etc.

Clearly this is just my opinion on things, and as I mentioned, I created the pages, so I am by no means objective about this, but I would appreciate your consideration on this.

Damiantgordon (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Series often have different production companies behind the scenes, and animated series change casts all the time. When I looked at things, I noticed that both the IMDB and the Bill & Ted official website considered them to be one series. The official site was the clincher - if an official entity calls it one, not two, then I think the case for separate series is shot down. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right, thanks for that, I really was over and back on whether it was two or one articles, but I think your reasoning make 100% sense, cheers Damiantgordon (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

George Lucas
I have not violated any copyrights so why do u User talk:TheRealFennShysa always edit my contributions that I have made to George Lucas page ? please email me at bdarazs@rocketmail.com
 * Why? Because what you've been adding is original research, largely incorrect, poorly formatted, and frankly unnecessary. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

here is my source (talk) :http://www.bestwebbuys.com/George_Lucas-mcid_2115371.html?isrc=b-authorsearch. Their is a webmaster getting back to me about my permission if I can use this source. Star Wars, Episode VI Return of the Jedi -by George Lucas Paperback, Dark Horse Comics (April 2008) But to show that I am trying to make my contributions on wiki I am learning how to use this site more.This is and accurate source and cite so tell me if that is wrong or not when u check out the link I just put up there. Bear (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)User Bear620 (talk)Bear (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I got your message
Hi. I got your message. I'm new -I don't know too much about how things are run here. I am not here to incite problems or cause trouble-that was not my intention. Thank you. Mavericker (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Star Wars
I have begun a discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing films in which you may be intereted in. Thanks and I look forward to reading your comments on the matter.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING
Please see the WP:ANI discussion on this very issue. The original IP blanked the talk page back in December and it should not be restored. Reverting the blanking is a violation of Wikipedia policy and could result in your suspension of editing privileges if you continue. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

.

inre Dreamscape (2007 film)
I've taken this one under my wing, and will be working to address your concerns. At this point my work is by no means complete... and there is much yet to do... but when I am done with expansion and citing I will ask you to revisit the article. Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary
While I agree with your removal, it's because the content was trivial and poorly written; mere (non-)canon status is not, as you suggest, a reason to include or exclude material. --EEMIV (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Kato (Producer/Artist)
I see that you have restored some tags involving a neutral point of view. I think the article is fair and does not make statements without citing credible sources. Is there anything in particular you saw that might say otherwise? 24.196.224.69 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-pro football discussions need feedback
Hello! You have participated in WP:AFD disucssions involving semi-pro football teams in the past. The following two AFD discussions could use additional weigh-in as they appear to be stuck in "relisting" mode:


 * Articles for deletion/Seaboard Football League
 * Articles for deletion/Northeastern Football Alliance

I am placing this notice on talk pages of users who have shown interest in the past, regardless of how they !voted in the discussion. If you do participate, please mention that you were asked to participate in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinion vs. Fact: Re: Kramer
Please see if you can lend your assistance here as a neutral party at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Kramer. I have to no avail. And received a warning for it.

How does one deal with opinion vs. fact when both are in print? One example is the "riot" where investigative reporter Cohen at http://atlantajewish.com/content/2004/edkramer.html notes that there is no record of any such riot. The aforementioned article quotes witnesses of an assault. Is is incorrect to provide balance according to TOS? Please note that a 3rd party had previously evaluated the content and removed inappropriate content from OrangeMike, which he has now replaced. OrangeMike has been a past critic of both Dragon Con and Kramer prior to 2000, and his commentary reflects this bias. I have been to Dragon Con, have followed this case, but consider myself neither a close friend nor associate. Aeneas (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Message Board
I have contributed to the topic about me on the Wikiquette board and i have apologized for calling you an idiot, but you deleted it. I didn't mean for the incident to spiral into edit warring and is now being discussed on LXG's discussion page. I do feel we can work this out and hopefully help each other out with the improvement of the project like i've been doing with the Notable Deaths sections of 2003-2007. Please express concerns about my actions on my talk page and i will work to improve on them. Please accept this apology. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:22 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Star Wars Episodes
I have noticed in the past that you tend to revert references to the two films The Empire Strikes Back, and The Return of the Jedi, as being released under those titles. You appear to have the point of view that the actual titles of those films included Episode, at time of release. My question for you is; Do you have a reliable source for this, or are you solely relying on each pictures "in movie" scroll for this information.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The films themselves are the reference - both Empire and Jedi included the episode number and name in the crawl on their original release - but if you wanted to get really picky about it, the films were never marketed simply as The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi either, as both of them had Star Wars as part of their logo... However, if you need a cite, there's a Time magazine cite from May 1980 (dont' have it handy, but it's probably already on one of the pages) which specifically addresses "Episode V" showing up in Empire.... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have found ample citations referring to the movies, marketed and otherwise, as simply Return of the Jedi and Empire Strikes Back. I have also seen the article from 1980 and its only reference to "Episode" in it, is that it will be included in the opening scroll, but not that the movie will be titled as Episode V. So are there any good reliable sources stating that the films were actually released with the Episode in the title, because I haven't seen any.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Time reference specifically states: "...the movie is identified as Episode V. Since it is the immediate sequel to the original Star Wars, that opus has been retitled Star Wars: Episode IV, raising a meteor shower of questions." Being in the crawl makes it part of the title.... "Star Wars", the the episode number, then the subtitle... this is a standard naming convention. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well your right it does say that. I must have seen another source. How does this single source trump, however, the hundreds of thousands of other sources, including George Lucas himself, that say the complete opposite?--Jojhutton (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike the original film, Empire and Jedi have always had the episode numbers on-screen - as far as I'm concerned, the films themselves trump everything. This is a real can of worms here - they may have been marketed a different way, but which do you go with? Most people (including (probably) you, myself, Lucas, etc) mention them in shorthand as, say, The Empire Strikes Back, and yet the poster identifies the film as Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. Which is correct? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that you feel that the film is the source, but it is a primary source that I feel you may be misinterpreting. That it needs a reliable Secondary source for verifiability.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're over-thinking this - if a film itself states its own title on-screen, how can something else trump that? It's like if I were to say my name is A, but since a lot of people call me B that this trumps A? For another example, many news stories and people refer to the individual Lord of the Rings films only by each film's subtitle, when in fact the entire title includes The Lord of the Rings: first... This seems to be a case where secondary sources aren't needed. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I say this very respectfully, but how does a single editors interpretation of a primary source, trump hundreds of thousands of secondary sources? Although the film says "Episode" within the opening scroll, does not imply that that is the title of the film.Jojhutton (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How can it be my single interpretation? The film articles are given the full title, complete with Episode number, because that's the name of the film, as shown on screen (except in the case of the original, which has the appropriate note on its page about its original release). All of the main Star Wars films have this naming convention. If you feel otherwise, perhaps you should try moving the film pages to simply The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi and see how long it takes before that gets reverted by other editors.... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about renaming pages? I only questioned your reverting any reference to those films being originally released under their episode titles. Please try and stay on topic and don't change the subject. Jojhutton (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment
Thanks for your assistance. I've already reported the offending editors to WP:ANEW and requested full page protection, but whatever calms things down works for me. This was simply getting out of hand and had to stop, so hopefully this will do just that. -- McDoob AU  93  18:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a prob - I'm pretty sure we've got one person behind both accounts - they're goth coming out of Portland, Maine area - awfully convenient... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Cascade (Atlanta)
Cascade is a hugely important living breathing part of Atlanta, but it has no official government-recognized status - but is referred to by name in 1000's of media references. Therefore if you don't believe the article should/can exist, I would rather that you delete it (I don't know how) and then in the Cascade disambiguation page I can simply have a bullet point that Cascade can refer to southwestern Atlanta, and that can direct them to the southwest Atlanta part of the Neighborhoods of Atlanta article. If you have any suggestions how to create an article about a place that exists, but has no official government status, I'm all ears Keizers (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick Question For You
Hi-haven't been here in a while. If you don't mind me asking, are you a Wikipedia.org staffer? A mod or admin? I am just curious. Mavericker (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Notice
A discussion has begun at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Please feel free to chime in.

Pricer1980
I noticed that you are reverting an IP who has edited company information that tends to be indiscriminate or false. Are you familiar with ? He's a banned user who has edited in that manner. I can't remember if you were involved with these discussions. I think you should be able to report these IPs as sockpuppets of the editor. Let me know if you want more information, and I can link to the relevant archived discussions. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not familiar with that one, but I've seen a LOT of this coming from the 81.x.x.x ranges... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not positive if there is a relationship, but here are the IPs that were sockpuppets. They're 86.x instead of 81.x, so I don't know if that means there is no relationship. You may be interested in discussion about the editor at WT:FILM here. Let me know how I can help, by putting certain pages on my watchlist or whatever. I assume he targets the list of Paramount Pictures films often? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please revert yourself at The Ring 3D? We can discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Going back and forth comes off as combative where we can have an opportunity to explain the guidelines. The second film does not link to that article anymore, anyway, and I removed the link to the article from the Ring template. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like it's necessary now - the other editor has concurred with the reasons for the redirect. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, guess it worked out. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI: User:Erik/Draft with links to related changes and logging of IP addresses. One IP sock was blocked today; another will be back tomorrow. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, hope you're doing well. I think we should centralize our effort combating this kind of IP vandalism. reported a recent IP vandal, so I was thinking we should have a task force to coordinate new addresses and newly targeted articles. You can use the above sub-page's talk page for discussions and notifications. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Request
I ask for your assistance for a possible page creation. I'm trying to research Ralf Bode, an Oscar-nominated cinematographer who's works include Saturday Night Fever, Coal Miner's Daughter and Don Juan DeMarco. I am currently busy with a renovation project, so it could really help if a reliable editor could help. Give me a shout. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:49 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The San Francisco School
Just a heads up - when tagging an article G12 it's a good idea to glance at the talk page and see if there's an OTRS tag in case they've provided permission for the content. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry cartoons
What about the cartoons themselves? Ischa1 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * IYou're adding in minor details unrelated to the plot. See the essay WP:PLOTSUM for more advice. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
I don't think we need to do any warnings; the SSI] is extensive. We can go straight for the block (which I've done). I asked HelloAnnyong if we should do another CU to find out what else is out there. [[User:Erik|Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter - the idjit's been blocked already. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I requested page protection for that list, BTW. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Snafu Comics
Hello TheRealFennShysa. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Snafu Comics, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: has survied two AfDs, so it needs another one. Thank you. Tikiwont (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Steven Spielberg
Hey there, I've been following the Steven Spielberg article and noticed you completely reverted an editor's post on the associated talkpage and was wondering what your rationale was for doing so (since the developmental timeline of that thread seems to now be broken) - re: this edit. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP appeared to be trying to insert his preferred text online in any way that he could. He'd already been informed that the sourcing was problematic (a fansite and a message board), but seemed intent on getting it online. Since he was not interested in discussing the problems with his sourcing, it seemed to me to be verging on a WP:POINT edit, and so I removed it as being unhelpful. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Saw your post & was wondering if you think it's time to file a WP:SPI or possibly at WP:RFC/U. I have also noticed a coincidental similarity of location & edits from some of the IPs editing the Spielberg article as well as posting on its associated talk page. Shearonink (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that'd be a very good idea - he's definitely evading a block by posting from the other IP. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg
Thought you'd like to know that the editor who added that Harry McLean/Tablet Factory vandalism is User:82.40.136.102 per this edit. McLean/MacLean is the general executive of the Dundee Football Club & that seems to be an ongoing theme to recent vandalism from UK IP-editors. Shearonink (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI on a 3RR report
Someone reported you to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Just to give you a heads up.Jojhutton (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing the CW Template
Why exactly do you feel justified in removing it and wanting it deleted (besides simply saying that it's "unnecessary)!? Please keep in mind that because of the CW's rather complex background/history, it should require something broad navigational wise at least. BornonJune8 (talk) 02:47 p.m., 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that you were adding in stuff that had no direct relation to the network - failed networks from the 1970s and 80s? PTEN? Maybe an appropriate template that dealt with actual CW related articles, but that one is trying to be too much. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I could get where you're going with the PETN (even though technically, it could be considered a precursor to the CW since it was a partnership with Warner Bros. and Chris-Craft, UPN's initial partner). But the previous Paramount networks (prior to UPN), have to be regarded as forerunners to UPN (United Paramount Network). Deleting the entire template is a tad bit extreme instead of simply removing/trimming out the needless fat so to speak. BornonJune8 (talk) 04:11 p.m., 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You are aware that the CW was born out of a merger from the WB and UPN? Does, those respective networks' programs and affiliates are by default, also those of the CW. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:31 p.m., 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that there should otherwise be a seperate template for the WB and UPN even though they're technically, the same entities as the CW!? It would be fruitless to do individual templates since they don't exist as seperate, independant entities anymore. BornonJune8 (talk) 03:24 p.m., 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Five Four Clothing's Wikipedia Page
Why exactly do you feel that this site is promotional rather than just stating the business facts behind the company? There is no listing directly to individual products, no sales or promotional codes are available through the page, and no wordage saying that we are compared to or better than any company is present. Its strictly facts and i'd like your flag for removal to be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngaulin (talk • contribs) 21:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've declined the speedy deletion request. If you (TheRealFennShysa) still feel it should be deleted, let me know and we can discuss it. Feezo (Talk) 01:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Star Wars Holiday Special: "Removed Apparent April Fool's Joke"
Just for the record: It may be April 1, but if this news about the Holiday Special Blu-ray release is supposed to be a joke, it certainly is NOT on me. I recommend you check out the Internet and the link I've provided before you make rash assumptions about the seriousness of one's contribution. 91.32.191.145 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Spock edits
If you don't like the edits I made, then perhaps you should drop by and discuss the ways in which the article can be improved, rather than just deleting things. I've even got a discussion started up here, but neither you nor EEMIV have had the courtesy of gracing it with a response. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Mass Hysteria (band)
While this has been deleted (and now restored), please note that releasing ten-ish albums (and some on a notable label) is sufficient to pass our notability guidelines, let alone constitute some kind of "significance". Ironholds (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Seagull (theatre)
If you want to put it up for deletion fine, but IMHO not speedy deletion Hugo999 (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I need your Help
I have some information but I need your help with it. Its about Barack Obama. Message me when you can. Bear (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)User Bear620(talk)Bear (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
I have recently been reminded of what a pain in the butt I was when I first started heavily editing at Wikipedia. As part of that, I would like to apologize for any problems I may have given you a couple of years back. Please accept this as both my way of saying "Thank you" for unknowingly helping me become a better editor. The apology and the gratitude are both long overdue. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 16:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Monsters University
With reference to this discussion which you participated in, I see that the page has been created again, despite little further development. Would appreciate your input on the talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)