User talk:The Arbiter/Archives/December 2009

Talkback
Donlammers (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

here's what happened
Rather than giving you just my perspective, you can piece it together from User:YellowFives, User talk:ZooPro/Archive November 09, and User talk:Pedro. As a result of that exchange, Tanthalas39 removed ZooPro's rollback. ZooPro then quit. (PS, how do you make the "Welcome" sign appear when I edit this page?) ~YellowFives 00:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He has an edit notice. If you would like something similar, just create user talk:YellowFives/Editnotice and put whatever message you would like. :) @Kate   (talk)  00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Those have been confusing me because I couldn't see a template anywhere. ~YellowFives 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow...doesn't seem like ZooPro at all. I wonder if I should temporarily take over coordination of WikiProject Zoo. Any advice? The Arbiter  ★★★  00:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I don't know much about WikiProjects. But my general advice for life is to plan for the worst and hope for the best. ~YellowFives 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Adoption
--Shadowed Soul (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to upload the image, but I'm not an autoconfirmed user yet. Would you mind uploading it for me? http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:d9fuxzljldse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowed Soul (talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)



Fetchcomms has eaten your cookie! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Haha. Actually, I was just seeing how the ignore command worked ;)  fetch  comms  ☛ 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with references
Hi there, it's me again, your adoptee! I'm doing all right (and got a lovely compliment here http://www.wittylama.com/2009/12/culture24-links/, which was a nice surprise) but I can see that I've made a mistake. I've edited this entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkham_Priory and made a citation out of what was an external link. Then I had to go in again and add a References thing at the bottom, so the citation reference was visible. However, now the other external links aren't showing up - though I never meant to delete them! Please could you have a look and then spell out very simply exactly what I need to do differently? Thanks ever so much for your help. RosieClarke (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A few problems i have been having lately
There's this article that has lots of problems. One of the main ones is the religion section within the Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime). The opening paragraph is good and very explanatory. But the problem i see is the list of religious reference. Even though it's a visual theme and religion is the main reference that made NGE famous.

the problem is that when we discuss it is heavily difficult to be civil when everyone is pushing. I have a strong sense of fancruft within there comments even when they think they are bringing something logical when it barely relates to the topic.

first they argue by NPOV, because one (the creator) says that it has no significant and that there are multiple interpretation and that there are others who made there interpretation on the visual theme (even though no controversy appears). next they go by because the religious section is famous and significant in real world and that the topic is important to be discussed which i agree that the topic in general is important to be explained in the religion section, but the information is not really "helping" or explained in a proper way.

they list too many specific areas trying to give out the idea when it's easier to give a summary version or a piece of information that summarizes everything the list is trying to imply.

very difficult since I'm new and don't understand a lot of WP:, and when i do read them it's difficult to use since i barely understand. The only one i use is WP:trivia.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So am i wrong or are they wrong?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

it is truly uncivilized discussion,. as much as i try to be civil, it just keeps pushing.

Right now, the problem is that i cant "prove" anything even though the answer is right in front of them. the little list of reference is simply trivial as it is.

the only thing supporting them is that it's not trivial simply because the topic itself isn't. they are deeming the each piece of reference important. all I'm saying is that the list is trivial but the main idea itself isn't.

of course i would try to ask you to look for yourself. i have trouble giving out my main point. the problem is that the ideal in the NGE section is very close to FANCRUFT, where they believe anything can be entered in NGE simply because the general idea of it is important.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

the main point is that they believe the list of religious reference is important simply because the topic is about it. but i believe listing every piece of visual theme that had ever appeared in the show. I said it was trivial to mention every single and simply explain it in a less list-format way and give just one example.

of course they bashed and said NPOV even though there was no contradicting POV's and my proposal wouldn't even go against NPOV. Then they just stopped using WP: and said that the religious theme is significant enough to be mentioned without any reason. i kept using PW:TRIVIA and in the end i used WP:NPS, but everyone jsut stopped talking. i would really want to use arbitrary but it looks complicated and my attempts to try only got me more confused. it would be best if you could figure this out or at least give your point of view.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply
I think I'd have to hold off on that for now. I'm seriously considering leaving Wikipedia for good, so I don't want to waste your efforts =/ I'll look into the possibility of staying on Wikipedia after 2009, but if current plans hold, I shall be leaving before January 1, 2010. Netalarm  talk  05:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Morgan Newton
He might be notable, not sure. It was deleted due to it being a copyright violation, so the question of notability wasn't brought up. Wizardman 01:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the page I deleted was copied word for word from the kentucky team site. Wizardman  17:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a question to ask the people at Bot Approvals Group. I don't know enough about bots to know if they'd approve it, though I think they'd be fine with it imo. Wizardman  17:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Help
I am interested in beginning to develop a bot. Is there a page that shows the current active bots and a brief summary of their functions? I just want to make sure that I don't make a redundant bot, if you get my meaning. The Arbiter  ★★★  22:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bots/Status @Kate   (parlez)  22:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas back at you :)
Merry Christmas, ! May you be blessed with a full plate and a joyous spirit! I hope that this Christmas season is one of celebration and rest for you and your family.  fetch  comms  ☛ 00:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you don't mind, I've fixed your template to provide the date along with your signature (as you were substing it). Feel free to change it back if it causes issues though :)  fetch  comms  ☛ 00:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry... Just thought you'd like a date like with normal signing. Oh well.  fetch  comms  ☛ 00:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)



Thank you very much for the barnstar!  fetch  comms  ☛ 00:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Christmas to you too
I am impressed by your achievements here in half a year. Merry Christmas and a happy new year!--Charles (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ADoptee
no hard feelings. some things have gotten in the way and i thought it was best to find another one. someone accuses me of targetting him and is using you as an excuse even though i have not mentioned his name.

so i thought it's best if i found another adoptee so this user wont accuse me of ganging up on him.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I'm the one Bread Ninja is talking about, I'd like to clarify a few things. Being one of the participants in the debate which ended in a consensus against one of Bread Ninja's proposition, I was not too pleased to see that Bread Ninja was using your talk page, The Arbiter, to spread behind our backs her own, very subjective account of the debate, in which we would all have been "uncivil".
 * I didn't say anything until I saw Bread Ninja attempting to spread the false claim, on another participant's talk page, that I would have been "uncivil", to the point that she planned to report me, that I had a "problem" that needed "fixing".


 * I can perfectly understand Bread Ninja's hatred for our inital disagreement with her concerning article content, what I do not accept is her "behind the backs" attempts, since the discussion ended, to rewrite history and to put us all in the roles of the bad guys, and to jump on every single occasion to accuse us of something, or even to sets us against each other. I ended up being accused of "uncivility", even though Bread Ninja herself doesn't seem to have any problem to call us all a "bunch of biased fans". I just told her that this behavior, libelling us while trying to make people unfamiliar with the topic take sides even after the discussion was ended (and that's when I mentionned your own talk page, Arbiter) wouldn't get her anywhere.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just won't say anything about all this... The Arbiter  ★★★  22:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you for that, this has gone on long enough and he isnt being reasonable. please just dont respond to this sort of mess.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Tone of an Article
along with fiction and stuff related, when a character or plot differences arrive, how do you fix stuff that says "in episode 20 it was revealed" or "the character's personality is different of that of episode 20 from episode 21) things that use episode numbers and chapters.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand, could you be a little more clear? So, what are you trying to fix? The Arbiter  ★★★  00:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please advise
AS suggested on my talk page, I went through the Wiki articles about Peacock terms, Conflict of Interest and FAQ/Organization. I have rewritten the article in my Sandbox space in an effort to not sound like a promotional article. Can you please review the article and give me your feedback? I also would like to tell you that I am new to Wiki Content Development but do enjoy it. This is my first article. I will make every effort for an article to get live than to have it deleted. Looking forward to your critical feedback. PCJain (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Returned
I have returned to wikipedia, however feel free to remain in the WikiProject Zoo Coordinators position if you wish. My time will be dedicated to the WikiProjects and ONLY the projects i have no desire to fight vandalism or edit pages for any extent. My interaction with other users will be limited to the Projects only. Cheers  Zoo Pro  05:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please help
Would you mind making this look nicer please.

Thanks in advance.  Zoo Pro  05:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas, ! May you be blessed with a full plate and a joyous spirit! I hope that this Christmas season is one of celebration and rest for you and your family.  fetch  comms  ☛ 18:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Adotpion
Hi, I saw your message on my discussion page and yes, I want you to adopt me :). I have created a page about Amaris and this page was deleted and I don't know why. I have created the same page on the french wikipedia and the article was not deleted... Thanks in advance for your help. --Amaris2010 (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Regarding tone of an article
When talking about a series of fictional work, there are often paragraphs like "in episode 20, it was revealed that the main character (and so on)" or if it's referring to a seires of novels the article or it's section will start off as "In Chapter 12, page 2, subsection 3, the character showed hints of romance with the protagonist, confirming that there is a strong relationship between the two"

^^ these are jsut examples, but some articles are written in that form. is it ok to keep it in such a way or rewrite it?Bread Ninja (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...well, if you could show me a specific example, that would be good. But, in general, I think that just "Chapter 12" would suffice, instead of Chapter, page, and subsection. After all, on different versions of the book, it could be on different pages. The Arbiter  ★★★  22:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pandora Hearts appears to show this and Also Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) on the character sections.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, generally, an article on a novel wouldn't really indicate each chapter but would describe the plot of the book as a whole, which you might want to do there. ♠ The Ace of Spades  ♣ ♥ ♦   17:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

HELP
ok, so this popped up on the page I'm editing ( hint, hint User:Taylor Lane/Authentic (horse) yah, in case you forgot) - it says

Cite error: There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a references/ tag (except it it had the > things around it)

that means......what??? *dream on*dance on* 06:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane (talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, forget this, i figured it out *dream on*dance on* 19:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane (talk • contribs)