User talk:Woodensuperman/Archive 8

Nomination for deletion of Template:Goat breeds of Italy
Template:Goat breeds of Italy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

DYK for Frozen (2013 film)
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Doctors (2000 TV series)
Hi, Just wondered why you have changed to the name of the above article? It has been going by Doctors (soap opera) for a long time and is a more accurate name for the article, as it is a soap opera. I am unaware of any discussion on the change as a proposal. Thanks. Adamiow (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Adamiow, it's per the naming guideline at WP:NCTV, which doesn't advocate disambiguation by genre. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm assuming that the reason that it isn't at Doctors (TV series) is because of the ambiguity between it and various programmes called The Doctors (TV series). Therefore, Doctors (soap opera) isn't sufficient disambiguation, as The Doctors'' (1963 TV series) is also a soap opera.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay - been away. Personally, I think having Doctors (soap opera) or with a year added if necessary is more accurate. Nevertheless, having considered it further, do you feel that the names are different enough to have the article at Doctors (TV series), with a hatnote to The Doctors? Thanks. Adamiow (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again Adamiow, the naming guidelines don't allow for "soap opera" to be used as disambiguation. But personally, yes, I think Doctors (TV series) is sufficient enough, in the same way that Doctors (novel) would be disambiguated enough from any novel called The Doctors (novel).  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Or indeed, the same way that Doctor (film) is considered suitably disambiguated from The Doctor (1991 film) and The Doctor (2013 film). --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. That's great. I will move it over when I have a chance. Thanks. Adamiow (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll
There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Supernatural (1977 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simon Langton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Children's Film Foundation filmography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Out of the Darkness. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ivan Reitman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shivers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Bond template
Stop edit warring: you're being disruptive. This is simple common sense, not an exercise in mindless wiki-lawyering. You have an issue with the status quo, then open an RfC - ditto with the tom thumb article. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit warring at the Tom Thumb (film) article is all you. The status quo on the was with the house style, not the lowercase.  You have yet to come up with a guideline that supports your move to lowercase.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No: It was in place from 2006 to 2013, so perhas you could try to stick to honesty on this one, rather then try and mislead by selectively decising what the sq is? - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think 18 months in a state which conforms with our MOS counts as status quo. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Rex Ray
Good catch there! But I must apologise: I didn't check the talk page, as I should have done, before removing the copyvio and rewriting a mini-stub. That means that your (even stubbier!) rewrite has not been used. I'm sorry about that, it was careless of me. Moving forward, would you like to incorporate anything you want from it into the page, and then blank the temp version - which should then fairly quickly disappear? I'd be grateful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I don't think there's much on my stub that isn't included on your version!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. If you clear all content from it, or add Db-g7, it should gracefully disappear. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Serentiy comics
''"In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits..."'

Well, if you looked at my user page or the top of my talk page, you'd see that my account is 10 years old, and has over 105,000 edits to it. In fact, it turned 10 years old four days ago, making it precisely 10 years and four days old. Does this qualify?

You might also want to check out Don't template the regulars.

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Then you should have known better than to perform a cut and paste move. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much
Thanks for your help at Hard Choices (film). &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Satyricon (album)
You recently redirected Satyricon_(album) to a disambiguation page. There are still articles that are linked to the redirect that now go to the dab page instead of the article that they should be linked to. Can you go through and clean up the links so they link to the correct article? -- GB fan 00:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Most of these were just from template transclusions, but have null edited those and tidied up the rest.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- GB fan 12:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely
I say just leave the Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely template alone. Lg16spears (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: "English" vs. "English-language" at 2014–15 United States network television schedule
It's not about language. It's about consistency of each other season articles and I don't find that English-language context is really necessary. It is fine where it's at and it should be left alone. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please reply on your talk page, not here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Hilary Duff
I see what you mean about the filmography link, no problem. Just so you know I am against listing film and TV work in music artist templates, the template should just be about the person's music work, which why I thanked your edit. Many music artist templates have this problem, i.e. Template:Justin Timberlake. QuasyBoy (talk)  15:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that . Actor filmographies in templates are a no-no, there's a long standing consensus on this if you're interested. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. QuasyBoy  (talk)  16:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Re. Articles nominated for deletion
Thanks for the heads up. Dongord (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Nino Rota template
I was curious as to why you recently deleted the template Nino Rota from the article I due timidi. This seems somewhat illogical since the article itself is included in the template. (I notice that the entire template was formerly considered for deletion.) I do not much care one way or the other - just interested in your reasoning.--14:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Heavy-handedness on my part!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Nino Rota Template - "Film Music" Section OK - or Not?
 Copied from the Talk-Page of the Nino Rota Template:

Nino Rota Template - "Film Music" Section OK - or Not?  FWIW - seems that the "Film Music" section containing links to films with music scores composed by Nino Rota in the Nino Rota Template is not ok by one editor - seems the film score to "Romeo and Juliet" is ok - but the film scores to "The Taming of the Shrew" and "War and Peace" (or any of the relevant Fellini Films, like "8½" and "Juliet of the Spirits") - are not? - Other editors may disagree with this edit deletion of course - After all, according to "WP:OWN", "All Wikipedia content ... is edited collaboratively" - The following listing of films with music scores by Nino Rota was deleted, without discussion, and without noting the exact basis in the WP:MOS and/or WP:POLICY, by "User:Robsinden":

Copied from the April 3, 2015 version of the Nino Rota Template: Film music of Nino Rota:


 * A Hero of Our Times
 * Amarcord
 * Amici per la pelle
 * Anna
 * Arturo's Island
 * A Yank in Rome
 * Boccaccio '70
 * Campane a martello
 * Caro Michele
 * Cento anni d'amore
 * Children of Chance
 * Contact
 * Daniele Cortis
 * Death on the Nile
 * Difficult Years
 * Doctor and the Healer
 * Donne e briganti
 * Honeymoon Deferred
 * È arrivato il cavaliere!
 * Easy Years
 * 8½
 * Era lui... sì! sì!
 * Fellini: A Director's Notebook
 * Fellini Satyricon
 * Fellini's Casanova
 * Flesh Will Surrender
 * Folgore Division
 * Fortunella
 * Ghosts of Rome
 * Gli Angeli del quartiere
 * Her Favourite Husband
 * Hey Boy
 * His Last Twelve Hours
 * His Young Wife
 * Hurricane
 * Il Bidone
 * The Teacher from Vigevano
 * Il monello della strada
 * I tre corsari
 * I Vitelloni
 * It's Forever Springtime
 * Jolanda, the Daughter of the Black Corsair
 * Juliet of the Spirits
 * La Dolce Vita
 * The Queen of Sheba
 * La Strada
 * Le Meravigliose avventure di Guerrin Meschino
 * Love and Anarchy
 * Mafioso
 * Marito e moglie
 * Mambo
 * Modern Virgin
 * Nights of Cabiria
 * Noi due soli
 * Obsession
 * Orchestra Rehearsal
 * Peppino e Violetta
 * Piece of the Sky
 * Proibito
 * Purple Noon
 * Ragazze da marito
 * Rocco and His Brothers
 * Roma
 * Romeo and Juliet
 * Senso
 * Shoot Loud, Louder... I Don't Understand
 * Side Street Story
 * Something Money Can't Buy
 * Spirits of the Dead
 * Star of India
 * Submarine Attack
 * The Abdication
 * The Belle of Rome
 * The Best of Enemies
 * The Clowns
 * The Condemned of Altona
 * The Glass Mountain
 * The Godfather
 * The Godfather Part II
 * The Great War
 * The Law Is the Law
 * The Leopard
 * The Man, the Woman and the Money
 * The Most Wonderful Moment
 * The Reluctant Saint
 * The Stranger's Hand
 * The Taming of the Shrew
 * The White Sheik
 * This Angry Age
 * To Live in Peace
 * Totò al giro d'Italia
 * Toto and the King of Rome
 * Two Cents Worth of Hope
 * Under Ten Flags
 * Under the Sun of Rome
 * Un Ladro in paradiso
 * Valley of Eagles
 * Venetian Bird
 * Young Husbands
 * War and Peace
 * Waterloo
 * White Nights
 * Without Pity

QUESTION: Is the edit deletion of the "Film Music" section in the Nino Rota Template *entirely* OK - or Not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Willy nilly editing
There has been no consensus regarding producer/writer templates. The discussions that you have pointed to have been for the purpose of consensus to delete actor filmographies. If you intend to run around cleaning things up to reflect consensus, lets develop a consensus somewhere. How about having a discussion on whether any roles other than director can have templates?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers: "templates containing filmographies are not supported by this project. Such templates should be nominated for deletion as unusable. Note that filmography navbox templates for work by film directors are not covered by this consensus." Therefore, per this guideline, only director filmographies are acceptable.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alternative versions of Thor (Marvel Comics), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hulk and Steve Rogers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom
Thank you for knocking something off my to-do list, namely putting the thing in chronological order. Nthep (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, it looked far more daunting that it was! One problem though - I can't work out why reference 191 is showing outside the table at List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom!  Any thoughts?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I think. It looks like the ref for Hest Bank was mislocated on the line separating rows rather than after the text. Nthep (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Aha!
Another talk page stalker reveals himself! Thanks for the fix. Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, actually I went through all the edits by this IP when they started editing my talk page. They're blocked now! :)  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * B*gger, thought I'd found another one . Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Roy Harper Template
Hi, thanks for your edits. I was wondering where it's stated that other artists aren't to be included in a template? You have directed me to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, but I haven't read anything there that clarifies this. Stephenjh (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The point with that is that if the artist is included on the template, the same template should be on that artist's page. If you start having multiple loosely related artists on every template, then you end up with WP:TEMPLATECREEP. Best left to the "associated artists" section in the infobox at the top of the page.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Childrens's Film Foundation
Thanks...

BTW you may be interested to note the CFTF itself uploaded the first 10 mins or so of some of it's films to YouTube a while back... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'd forgotten I'd started an overhaul of Children's Film Foundation filmography - it still needs some work! --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Marc Abraham
"Only director filmographies go in navboxes", can you direct me to where it says that, I've just never heard that before. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, it's at WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, however it doesn't say his work as producer can't be in there? It doesn't say anything about producers not having their own navbox. Filmography for actors I get, that'd just be too much. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It says no filmographies in general, except for directors. And after producers, what about writers, cinematographers, editors, composers, etc., etc?  Best to stick to the main creative force - the "auter" of the film.  Here's a few recent consensuses:  Eva Longoria, Kent Smith, Rosemary Blight, Bill Conti, Lutz and Smith Films & Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw the section you opened at WikiProject - "Producer/writer/composer filmography navboxes consensus", so I added a comment there. But I agree on the writers, cinematographers, editors, composers, etc. part - that's just getting too much but producers are just as notable as directors are on a film, they should have a navbox if they have enough credits. But we can finish that discussion there if you'd like :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for your input - it's been hard drumming up any participation there! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Brian Eastman
 * added a link pointing to Simon Moore


 * Fear Is the Key (film)
 * added a link pointing to Alex Thomson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

orphaning
I see your removing films from bio templates. i am not sure why anyone would do this but Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has noting to do with what your doing..these are not filmography navbox they are bio navboxes. -- Moxy (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. The fact it is a bio navbox doesn't mean that that somehow allows inclusion of filmographies against guidelines.  The same principle applies.  It says "Navbox templates containing filmographies".  If you're confused, discuss it at the project page.  And there's very little orphaning involved - If the actors' navboxes are on the film pages, they shouldn't be there anyway.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerry Turpin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages La Bamba and Adam Greenberg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Project advice for no movies in navboxes
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Moxy (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Louis C.K. template
Hello, Robsinden. The Louis C.K. template which you're removing information from lists all of his writing and directing credits, like Template:Judd Apatow. It is not listing his acting credits, as your edit summary suggested. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Question
Why did you remove the directors and produces from Template:The Borgias (2011 TV series), despite the fact that the Rfc shows that there is no consensus for this? Debresser (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't include cast and crew in TV series or film series navboxes. I think the RFC you're talking about is for the navboxes for the individuals concerned.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, I did mix up that Rfc about people with navboxes about a series or film. Why wouldn't we have cast and crew in those? Debresser (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Characters tables' heading
Since you're not going to discuss it, let me briefly comment here. I don't know why you would say "Portrayer is not good English". Just because you don't use the word doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. And I would say that "portrayed by" is "not good English" in this case. A preposition should not be used at the end of a column heading. --Musdan77 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since we've compromised on "actor", not sure what we need to discuss further, but "portrayer" is not in common usage to discuss actors in roles, even though it might *technically* be correct. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a note ...
I didn't want to interrupt the thread ... this is just a note to say thank you for letting me know you had posted requests for input onto a few projects. I have added similar requests for input on the other relevant projects that have banners on the template or his article: Music, and Pop Music, and also on the Randy Newman talk page. Also: Composers; forgot that one existed. OK, that's it! Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of succession dates, etc., in navboxes
Rob, were you aware of the existence of navboxes such as Template:New York Yankees managers, Template:University of Virginia presidents, and Template:Indianapolis Colts coach navbox? With a little research, I think you will discover that there are thousands of navboxes in widespread use across a variety of subject areas that employ tenure dates and other incidental, non-linked text in navboxes. The dates in these navboxes serve an obvious chronological organizational function and a navigational aide to interested readers, by permitting them to select, for example, a coach or university president from a certain era, which is really not that different from using unlinked subsection headers, etc., in navboxes. I don't believe this practice is limited to sports and universities, either. There were multiple knock-down, drag-out fights over the use of unlinked succession dates in sports navboxes back in 2009–10, but those objections were ultimately dropped in the face of fairly strong consensus at TfD. If anyone were to propose deleting or altering the sports navboxes after five years of established consensus on point, I can assure you that dozens of angry editors would participate in any TfD, resulting in a SNOW closing. I see very little difference, as an organizing principle for navboxes, in the use of succession dates in these cases, and publication/production dates for bibliography and filmography navboxes. The non-linked text is incidental and actually serves as a navigational aide to interested readers.

I'll let you think about this before I comment further in the present discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . The major difference there is that your examples are complete chronologies without gaps, not sporadic film adaptations of a novel or similar.  In any case, I think the main point of the discussion is to get the work-based navboxes consistent, and whether we need a date in the title bar, not the body of the navbox.  My comment about the years for the adaptations was more an aside, as how this is dealt with varies from navbox to navbox - see Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Island of Dr. Moreau or Crime and Punishment for examples of ther methods.  Without dates (with exceptions for disambiguation, which should also be included in the linking) is my personal preference.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My other point was that I would prefer to see the work title before the author for two reasons - 1) The template is about the work, not the author, and 2) It removes the need for any preference of where to put the possessive apostrophe. Again, see The Island of Dr. Moreau.  (and as another aside I also note that H. G. Wells works template doesn't have dates in the bibliography).  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, then this is a content debate about how best to organize these navboxes for their particular subject, not a WP:NAVBOX debate about the permissibility of including unlinked publication and release dates for bibliographies and filmographies, based largely on the personal preferences of the participating editors. In which case, I'll leave you folks to thrash it out.  I have not been very active in editing films and literary works, and I don't think I it would be fair of me to jump in and tip the balance under those circumstances.  Just be aware of the existing precedents for the use of incidental, unlinked text in navboxes, includes dates, etc., as providing organization for the links.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I am popping by to remind you, Rob of the core of WP:RED:  "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic ...Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."  In short, your obsession with removing redlinks form navboxes needs to stop.  And you need to stop rewriting guidelines in one article in order to cite them in another.   Montanabw (talk)  08:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's for articles. The guideline has specific comments regarding navboxes: "Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, [...] since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles", athough you seem intent on removing it from the guideline.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A guideline you wrote and insist on keeping. I caught you doing this last year with the bidirectional guidelines.  The navbox pages can decide how redlinks can be used specifically; your "guideline" to the contrary at WP:RED contradicts even your own position on accepting sports lists and such...   Montanabw (talk)  08:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not - I had absolutely no part whatsover in writing that guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Kate Ceberano NavBox
Hey there, Thanks for the 'clean up' of the Kate Ceberano Navbox, it's appreciated.. but how come you deleted the related articles section? Those links are important aspects of her career. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Toby - sorry - think I was a little heavy handed in my trim. I've added back in the bands she was in (and the albums), but have left out only tangentially related articles, and things she was just a cast member for, per standard practice.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok then. I think what you've written is fair enough> Thanks for putting the two bands and their albums back in. Cheers Tobyjamesaus (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi
In regards to this, please don't edit stuff you know nothing about.  Caden  cool  02:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, please do not edit articles that you know absolutely nothing about. I don't have the energy to clean up your mess.  Caden  cool  16:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ...What gives you the right to tell people what they can and can't edit? I suggest you wind your neck in.   Cassianto Talk   19:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you're not welcome at my talk page, kindly explain yourself as to why you think you have the right to tell an editor where he/she can and can't edit. And please, drop the whole victim thing, it really doesn't suit you.   Cassianto Talk   22:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cass, how many times do I have to tell you to stop stalking me around wikipedia? I'm not only fed up with that but also fed up with your bullying tactics. Grow up, get off my back and move on buddy. Oh and btw I'm also growing real tired of you telling me to "fuck off" on talk pages and at ANI.  Caden  cool  22:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's get a few things straight: Now, back to the question I posed earlier: please explain yourself as to why you think you have the right to tell an editor where he/she can and can't edit?  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   22:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't stalk you.  Your contributions are certainly not interesting enough for me to want to stalk you. Frankly, I'd rather stalk a sloth.
 * 2) I am not your buddy, so address me correctly.
 * 3) I suggest, if your getting tired, you drink some extra strength coffee, because all the time you troll my ANI reports that have nothing to do with you, I will tell you to fuck off.  Do you understand?


 * **Undid personal attack by ** -- you are being your typical, hypocritical self by responding with personal attacks to linked copyvio videos on YouTube, but you are failing to answer my very simple question to you. Third time: Why do you think you have the right to tell an editor where he/she can and can't edit? Clearly, this isn't the first time that you have approached another editor so aggressively over, what is, a content dispute.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   08:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Red link. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)