User talk:Validusername

Deleted article
I closed that debate as delete because many of the "Do not delete" votes were from new users, or users whose only contributions was to the AfD debate, which suggests vote stuffing.--Shanel 04:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Granted, new and anonymous users voted for the article to remain (which despite their reasoned arguments could be mistaken for vote stuffing), but is that alone reason enough to delete the article? Is it not possible to ignore possible "stuffed votes" and focus on the debate at hand (much of which was deleted, as it was part of the Talk page)? Validusername 04:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it was a tough choice, which is why nobody wanted to close the debate in the first place ;). I did look at the AfD and the talk page, but in the end I leaned towards delete.--Shanel 04:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair response. I appreciate you taking the time to explain. Validusername 04:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: continuing discussion
Oops. That was pretty stupid of me. I have no idea why I said that: the proper spot if you think the deletion was out of process is WP:DRV, but considernig how the voting went I doubt you'd have much of a chance there. Still, the recourse is available. Since you are concerned about the POVity of notability, I also suggest giving Notability a glance, since it might give you some background on frequently-accepted Wikipedian positions. Lord Bob 05:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I intend to contribute to the ongoing debate on notability, verifiability, inclusionism, et al. Validusername 05:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Inception edit
Have you watched Inception? Terminology is relevant in the plot section to explain if it can't be explained otherwise. See Memento JTBX (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Phrases such as "The scene then cuts to.." or "the screen cuts to black" are superfluous, as they apply to near every film; the former could precede more than half of the sentences in the summary. I hope to find a middle ground. Validusername (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As per "The film returns to the first scene in which.." a compromise may be found in Wikipedia's Manual of Style for Film Plots, which states, "Events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen. If necessary, reorder the film's events to improve understanding of the plot." Validusername (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again. After much consideration, I agree that real world information such as 'scene cuts to' should be avoided, and am therefore removing it from the Inception article. I agree with placing it only when it is really necessary such as in Memento, but the premise of which it is used in Inception is not notable since it occurs later anyway. However I do need something in return from you. I am seeking some editors to help me control the article because some random IPs and fans keeping adding heaps of info to the plot in the article. It would really be helpful if you could perhaps just view the page once every day or two to see if the plot stays same-ish as of my edit to it today. Some guy keeps adding that the dreams they go into are of different members, when they are all Fischer's which is confirmed in the film. Thanks. Also I might look into getting Semi-Protection if it doesn't stop. JTBX (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)