This is an archive of past discussions with User:Saranghae honey. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot05:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry that I'm messing up your well designed talk page, SH - feel free to delete this message. I'd just like your opinion on the topic of mental health at the bottom of the Abortion Talk page. Regards, --[User:IronAngelAlice|IronAngelAlice] 17:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
House
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I was using the word pervert in a general sense. Some people (not me) would argue that hiring a Hooker is sexually perverted. I also don't think pornography is particularily perverted (although any addiction is a problem). In any event, I have simplified it to "sexual issues" now. I really wanted to say he was a se freak or sex fiend but that seemed less descriptive than sex pervert.--Dr who197501:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Please read the articles cited before declaring something to be original research. Just about all the comparisons were pulled directly out of the BBC article. It's not original research. If it came from the BBC, it is cited research.--Dr who1975 00:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)--Dr who197500:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Its pretty obvious she has lied about her age whenever she was born. However it would be impossible for her to win Miss Lebanon the year she did if she wasnt born in 1970 (I cant remember the year but it was the mid 80s). I removed askmen because I looked through it and it didnt list a birth year at all; just that she was 'in her mid 30s'.--Thegingerone22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
So Far from the Bamboo Grove
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Basically, in the music video, you have a dystopian society, but then a little kid musters the courage to climb up a tower and meet Ayu playing at the top of the tower with her band. Hah. But yes, I've been trying to figure out that song for a while now. Pandacomics (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi. Thanks for your continued efforts on the PAS page! PAS is not a legitimate diagnosis. I really object to the word "diagnosis" being used in conjunction with PAS in the intro. It is a matter of undue weight. And I'm not sure that my "used by pro-life" bit is too heavy-handed - it is well-documented. Only pro-lifers push PAS. PAS is a rejected theory of causation. Perhaps we could find some common ground between the edit I offered (which you reverted) and your reinstated version which made no effort to address concerns about the word "diagnosis". Do you think we can find some compromise? Phyesalis (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your response. I agree with your suggestions. Moving the "pro-life" commentary down in the lead would be a lovely compromise. Would you like to reword the intro re: "diagnosis" or would you rather that I did it? Again, given the recent contentious atmosphere over there, your thoughtful response was much appreciated. Phyesalis (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
I'd rather not see this
This is regarding your deletion of the "Yellow Fever" link from the editorial section of the Asian fetish page. First off there is a history of people trying to delete any and all references on this page that does not mitigate the term. Obviously I will, with the help of the administrators and others will do my best to put a stop to this. Also there is already a questionable "Asian preferences in dating" which is an obvious gross interpretation of a study of just over 200 people. One whole section that generalizes people of all races based on a limited and very poor study. And there's a section "Opinion that Asian Fetish is not all bad" which is a racist opinion by, shockingly enough, an asian female against her own race. These two sections do not deserver to exist and are pretty much trying to say the same thing. Why don't you delete them? If all the references that supports the fact that asian fetish is not benign had its own section like these poor attempts at mitigating this term, then we would have thousands of section just like this. Yet you don't seem to mind those attempts at mitigating this term. If you really have a problem with anything then talk about it on the talk page. Tkguy (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
External link, source. Fine it's an external link. I agree it's not the best article. But it's a very very very famous one regarding asian fetish. It was published in OC Weekly and the Village Voice. Please do not remove the external link. Tkguy (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Once again you are deleting lots of content off the asian fetish page. This page just got off of protection because people are deleting anything that makes asian fetish a negative. Please stop your vandalism. I see you have nominated this page for deletion. With that your agenda is apparent http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_fetish&diff=170474646&oldid=170463894. If you feel that your changes are justified then you should have no problem gaining consensus on the talk page. This is your last and final warning. Tkguy (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me ask you something. Is Asian fetish a fetish at all? fetish is an abnormal obsession for an object. you obviously think it's a harmless preference. But the term has the word fetish in it. Can you explain why a term with the word fetish in it is just a preference? Well one way if this obsession has become so ingrain in society that it becomes the norm and therefore stops being an "abnormal obsession". Is that what you are trying to get at? Tkguy (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
'The definition of Asian fetish, and the term "fetish" itself, and the usage of the term in the media is broad' Ahhh. so there's no fetish in asian fetish. You wrote it. and that's your agenda. to take the fetish out of asian fetish. And you are telling me I have an agenda? of course, to keep fetish in asian fetish (it's right there! right in the term but you are saying it's not there.) It's a term to describe a racist behavior towards asians. And I will do my best to keep it that way. Btw I don't mind people bringing up that some thinks it's a preference. I show that by not deleting entries that supports that. Unlike you, who delete entries that are not mitigating the term. so yes, you have an agenda. and it's obvious you are trying to push it on this page. Tkguy (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Fetish, kink, it's kind of a gray area. Actually the article could be improved by a discussion of this issue. Either way, wanted to ask why you prefer the less specific version of Quan that doesn't mention PONY, over the slightly wordier version that does. Both versions have merit, and I think I understand Tkguy's logic, but I don't know if I understand yours. Thanks. Phyesalis (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
If you've made the same edit in whole or in part, reverting four times within 24 hours (for example, removing the same passage four times—even if you do other edits), you can be blocked. Any others who also broke the rule should be blocked at the same time. I'm not sure whether you've actually broken the rule. I'll have took into that. Also note that three reverts is not an entitlement—it's the outer bounds of acceptable editing, and several consecutive days of three reverts may also result in a block.
There's no need for you to break the rule. It looks like several editors oppose this user's repeated changes. They can't bully their changes into the article because they're outnumbered. Cool HandLuke01:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you might only have three. There's a lot of changes going on at once, so it's hard to tell. I think any count that would result in your block would also resort in Tkguy's (if that's any comfort to you). I strongly advise against reverting any of Tkguy's edits for a while. There is probably enough activity to get the page locked at WP:RFPP, if anyone were inclined to ask for it. Cool HandLuke02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
A&F
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There was nothing wrong with your edits. I was undoing (belatedly) the poor quality edits that Hpfan1 made at the beginning of December. If you can mend them another way that'd be fine. ·:· Will Beback·:·02:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Shunning
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The problem is, we can't simply ignore him, since he is still screwing up the article content (and violated WP:3RR again). If he doesn't roll back his last edit, I'm reporting his disruption on WP:AN/3RR. *** Crotalus ***04:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Possible temporary solution
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
We could create a temporary sandbox in user space and work on the article there. That way, we'll have something to apply right away when the protection expires. This article is much better without all the nonsense and fringe sources that Tkguy added, but it still needs work. *** Crotalus ***07:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ack! I'm sorry that I haven't been able to be more help, I'm in the middle of a troll battle tense situation on Reproductive rights. And then the one citation I produced was already in the article. Agh! Anyway, I've been wanting to find some more sources and when I get a free moment, I'll see what I can pull out of the Audrey article (I mean, I know I'm not obligated, but it seems like a subject worthy of some good work). Phyesalis (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Missingyouftts.jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Missingyouftts.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Yes, it does seem that I misunderstood the actual nature of the article. Thankyou for politely explaining it to me! As a brand new user and a fan of both House and Sherlock Holmes I was just excited to have my contribution added when I noticed it so I was a little bit frustrated with the reverts, but do see where I went wrong.
Thankyou again, and I do hope to make more (correct) contributions to Wikipedia whenever I can.
No, I don't know how to revert! I've only ever really done minor anonymous additions to articles before, but I got a message today after a change that I should join so I did.
I don't know how much I actually have to offer, but it never hurts to know what I'm doing just in case.
(Independentwoman (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC))
Yes, in the past I have mostly just stumbled over minor errors or missing details in articles I'm interested in and corrected/added them. In fact, the last change I made that got me this invite was just adding categories to a stub article so I don't doubt I'll find plenty to get on with in the end.
(Independentwoman (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC))
Papa Bear says this is a "no-spin zone."
Asian fetish
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Either remove your personal attack on what you percieve as my beliefs off the Asian fetish talk page and post an apology. Or else I will include you on the arbitration request regarding this personal attack situation. Tkguy (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not asking for you advice. I am asking that you remove your disparaging comments and apologize. Since you have not and are not willing to then you will be included on this arbitration request. Tkguy (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
So Far from the Bamboo Grove
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
In about 580,000 Japese, only about 600 Japanese POWs were indeed detained for crimes so your claim is false? 579,400 of Japanese didn't detain for crimes. You are false>Saranghae honey. Wiki is not for a political advocacy, but a dictionary. If you don't want to be seen as a authoritarian, you'd better to be philosophical.Amazonfire (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Yes, absolutely we can use that sandbox. In fact, I can even move the relevant edits and merge them with the article's history. Thanks for continuing to work on the page even when it's uselessly locked. Cool HandLuke05:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Request for arbitration regarding personal attacks on Asian fetish
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello and welcome to WikiProject Persondata! Thank you for joining the project, there's quite a few articles to get through! You might be interested in the lists of biographies, which are intended to help with tagging biographies systematically. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion about the article count, I found a script by another user here that assesses template transclusions. I used it on the Persondata template, and I have updated the approximate count on the project page. We have quite a long way to go though! Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Thepromisealternate.jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Thepromisealternate.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
They should usually be deactivated once the request is finished. I think it clearly is in this case. If it was still a live controversy, we would keep it on the talk page, but the live template shouldn't be in the archive. Cool HandLuke03:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi there. Thanks for your helpful comment - it appears that the more I learn, the more I discover I still have to learn! In many of the articles I have read, unsourced claims seem to abound with few having 'citation needed' attached. Can anyone add this phrase or just administrators?
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Songchonggug.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Saiyuuki14b.jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Saiyuuki14b.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
User:Lan Di and I have a history. the user is continually removing merger tags from 24 pages when active discussions are taking place and actively attacks the edits I make on wikipedia and clearly has no idea how to discuss matters based on policy. I personally have had enough of the uneducated and narrow minded edits of the user and had to express my displeasure one way as the user does nothing but ignore the reasoned arguments and attack me.
Please see the edits | here, | here and please view the users edit history | here
--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Moved from my sandbox
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I know you're established editor so I don't give you a warning sing, but as you know you're in danger of 3RR violation. That's what they seem to want at this status, so keep cool and don't get caught in the trap.--Appletrees (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I filed several RFCU reports on the user, but it is frustrating procedure. You remain calm. The user tried to provoke me on other articles, so I just gave up a little but you are BOLD not to condone their abusive edits. But you still keep in mind that it is not end of it. Happy editing! --Appletrees (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That is too obvious but according to the sock policy, vanishing is also allowed in Wikipedia, so unless Amazonfire plays with the sock account, Amazonjoke, none can do anything. However, his break time (almost 10 months) doesn't add up to explain his reappearance. And an sock ip who made edits on Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea used a tactic to accuse me of another sockpuppetry in Japanese. -_- If he didn't leave the struck comment on Amazonfire's talk page, I could've thought that the anon is just another person, but the anon didn't expect I can read his wording in Japanese. --Appletrees (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Abortion and mental health
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hey there - I'm really glad that you didn't walk away from the article. Thanks for sticking around. I just wanted to say, don't worry, I have no intention of introducing that study on pro-life v pro-choice demographics. That was my point - some material no matter how pertinent and well-sourced just isn't appropriate. I thought about dropping it off at Abortion debate but then thought that maybe I'm not really the right person to make that decision. --Phyesalis (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
How is the portion that you removed OR?
It cited the episode, he did get a secret santa present (3, in fact) and he stated what each one was.
A watch
A vintage record
A Conan Doyle book.
Furthermore we know which gift came from which team member because Kutner gave him the gift first. He was looking at the watch when Taub gave him the second gift. #13 gave him the third gift and its shape was that of a record, not a book. Since Taub's box could've been the watch or the book but House was looking at the watch that means it was the book. Regardless the editor who put that in didn't tie it to Taub.
Hi Greyed, I've been watching every single episode of House myself. OR refers to an unpublished fact. It is indeed a fact that House got Sir Conan Doyle's book as a gift, but has it been mentioned by reliable, secondary sources?
Another related policy is WP:SYN, which is putting together published materials to form another thesis. I know that House got the Conan Doyle book as a Christmas gift. However, by adding them to the "Parallels to the Sherlock Holmes" section, you are implying that it is intended to be a parallel. The section is not for adding every single similarity noted between Sherlock Holmes and House as it would invited OR, SYN, and indiscriminate amount of information that cannot be verified.
I'm sorry that I can't explain this more articulately to you so that you can understand. Feel free to talk back on my talk page. I know that my comment may seem a bit convoluted. Thanks. миражinred (speak, my child...) 02:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're a tad off on the first part. It doesn't need to be from a secondary source as it is from the primary source, the show. That is as citable as anything else. However you are correct, putting it under the "Parallels..." section does take it a tad far. Thanks for the explanation. -- Greyed (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Persondata
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The Justinian I persondata was added by someone else. However, I must say that adding alternative names have been difficult. Since I'm not always sure which part of the alternative names are surnames and first names. This was especially hard for historical figures with long Arabic or Hebrew names. миражinred (speak, my child...) 19:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello there. I'm considered writing up a user-conduct RfC regarding Strider12's conduct, revolving around issues of tendentious editing, edit-warring in favor of seeking consensus, using Wikipedia as a venue for advocacy, constant personal attacks, etc etc. RfC's require the certification of other users who have attempted to deal with the conduct in question and resolve the underlying issue. Would you be willing to co-sign an RfC to the extent that you've tried to resolve the dispute with Strider12 on the relevant article talk-pages? Just curious - it's up to you. MastCellTalk23:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm willing to add my 2 cents for the RfC. Abortion and mental health has always been a controversial and a divisive subject, and I am not surprised that there are editors objecting to the article and seeing the article as biased. However, Strider12 has been less than willing to civilly collaborate with other editors and just repeats her points that have been rebutted too many times. миражinred (speak, my child...) 23:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gravityhigh.jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Gravityhigh.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago31 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed you just removed the under construction tag I placed on the page. The reason I put the tag there is because I am going to work on it. So I would appreciate it if you left the tag alone. You can discuss why you think it should not be there, on my talk page. Steve Crossin (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't get too defensive; the tag has been placed too many times when no editor ever aspired to dramatically edit the article, and I got sick of it. The tag was definitely stale since the article hasn't been edited in almost a week.
I was actually surprised by your comment; you are actually the first editor who placed the tag and actually intends to work on the article, which is definitely a good thing. I'll try to help you as much as I can. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 02:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your offer for help, have you been watching the article as well? Well, I'm very new to Wikipedia, and I'm getting a little tired of having the policy book thrown at me whenever I attempt to improve an article, I make all edits in good faith, and i have a basic understanding of wiki policy.
Yep, I've been watching the article for a while. And no, there's nothing wrong with putting the tag back on since I now know someone will actually edit the article. Although you say you are new, you actually have the courtesy to communicate with other editors before reverting, which is definitely a good thing. In the end, all it matters is really neutrality, using good sources, and being civil to other editors anyways. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 02:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I believe that reverting someones edit, unless it was quite obviously vandalism or a major mistake, that all edits are made in accordance with WP:AGF, and should always be discussed with the editor prior to reverting.
The current issue with the article is establishing the characters notability. Which would constituite finding third party sources. I don't want to see any more pages be merged that don't justify merging, so my current goal on Wikipedia is to improve the 24 articles, my main project at the moment is the Minor Characters in 24 page. Just on that, can you check this page? I suspect it could be being vandalised, please check the history page of it if possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_characters_in_24Steve Crossin (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the vandalism at the minor characters page has been reverted by a bot. If someone takes out a chunk of information without providing an edit summary, it usually is blanking. The articles relating to fiction are under extra scrutiny now. I've seem crappier articles, which obviously should not go unnoticed either, but this situation is obviously irking a lot of editors. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Definetly, I, who admittedly, am a 24 fan, added an (unreferenced) tag to a 24 page. I cannot show bias, but this article, I believe, could achieve the notability criteria, yet I think I cannot do this alone. Any assistance would be appreciated.
Also, I uploaded images of some main characters, such as Bill Buchanan, could you check the image and see if my copyright explanation is correct?
And finally, I see the edit that was made on that page, they moved it to a different page. It was proposed that the page be split, but it was still awaiting opinions, so should not have been done yet.
Your rationale for fair use was good. I added a template for fair use in case something else happens. I think the problem for Bill Buchanan, and other articles, is that it just has too much in-universe perspective. Listing what happens every season only serves the interest for an in-universe perspective. Also, I noticed that the minor characters of 24 has been sourced by wikia, which may not be a reliable source since anyone can edit it. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 02:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
As you probably know already, there needs to be tense shift for fictional characters. Everything should be in present tense unless there is something that happened before the time the show takes place. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 02:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This was my exact point. I've tagged that article for improvement so heavily, and I'm doing all I can to improve it, but agreed, 24Wikia is not a reliable source, well, not in the context of Wikipedia anyway.
And I'm glad my rationale for fair use was good. That means I can add images for the other characters, with a reasonable assurance they will be accepted.
Agreed, I've seen the seasons of 24 already. Wikipedia should contain facts, not plot summaries: WP:NOT#PLOT. Well, at least I know my grip on Wiki Policy is okay.
I believe that many of the articles may be notable, but most often they are either plot summaries, written in a in-universe context, or are just poorly written. What i disagree with is merging all the articles into one big article, and then leaving one person to clean up the mess (which I have been working on at the moment) There are over 85 URL anchors I have to redirect to the proper sections, and as this has been discussed by ArbCom, and an injunction has been issued, the merges should stop.
Also, it is quite clear what characters are proposed to being merged into the Minor Characters page, but not the Minor CTU agents page, example, there should be a (mergefrom-multiple) tag on the Minor CTU agents from 24 page. Is it possible you could help me hunt down all the pages with this tag on it: {{merge}}. Thanks Steve Crossin (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to track some down. So far I only see Mike Doyle (24 character) although I know there are many more articles that are tagged with this. By the way, I found some secondary sources for Nadia Yassir. I think it has enough sources for the debate to be over. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 03:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you help me with this sentence: The character has been described as the opposite of Muslim characters on American television, in which they are at times stereotypically portrayed. The article describes that characters like her and shows like Aliens in America is following the trend of portraying Muslim characters beyond one-dimension, but my sentences sounds a bit awkward. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 03:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I think that sentence looks OK. You could explain how Nadia shows that Muslims are not all one way. Assad would also be another example of this, I believe.
Just on the merging of articles, if they have been proposed for merging, yet not actually merged, yet have sections on those pages as if it has been merged, is it OK if i delete these sections?
I'm not completely sure what you mean, but if you want to prevent the articles from being merged, you are going to need some dramatic edits. So be bold, and edit the article as you see fit, whether that means deleting some sections or not. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 03:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
And might I add, I've never seen worse organisation of a list as I have seen with the Minor CTU agents TOC.
You also said you added a template for fair use, in regards to the Bill Buchanan image? Could you please point me to where it is? The particular image I've found of Nadia is a promotional image, so would it be (non-free-promotional)? Steve Crossin (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Since Nadia is a fictional character, you won't find a free image, so any image that you will find will either be a screenshot or an image from FOX. Here is the fair use template -> Template:Non-free use rationale. As for the minor characters section, yeah, it's pretty bad. I think you should chop it down and direct it to the main article if it has any. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 03:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a little bit of trouble with finding the correct template, if I add the basic template I did before, could you fix it up a bit? Steve Crossin (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)\
Should we now request a review by a third party, to have the article's notability checked, so the Notability tag and the merge tag be removed?
And also, I actually largely copied the template from the Bill Buchanan template, thats why the (24 Character) part remained. A silly error. Steve Crossin (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Also updated the image for Chloe O'Brian, I uploaded one for Karen Hayes a few days ago, and one of Lynn McGill the other day as well. Do you think it would be in good faith to remove the notability tag? Steve Crossin (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, is their a way to request a review of the article, to establish it's notability? And I think Chloe is pretty safe, my next task is fixing the remainder of the URL anchors on the Minor Characters page, searching for a character redirects to the top of the page, not the characters section, I was supposed to do that an hour ago. Well, at least we've saved this article from merging, in my opinion. Steve Crossin (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
I've just seen that you deleted the sections on Season 3 and 4 for Chloe O'Brian. May I suggest a (rewrite) tag or a (cleanup) tag of some sort, I will try working on that page, however deleting those sections altogether I think may be unnecessary. Steve Crossin (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes, deleting information is the best move for the article. Doesn't the article already have enough in-universe information? I don't think a section on her appearance on each section is necessary for it to be a good article. I think this is closer to indiscriminate amount of information. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 04:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, we can add an (in-universe) tag to the article, and I could do some extensive research to determine if her role in Seasons 3 and 4 were notable enough to include them in her page. However, the Infobox currently says that she was only in Seasons Five and Six, which could be confusing for readers who are not familiar with the topic. Could I suggest a cut down version of her role in Day Three and Four, just for the time being? Steve Crossin (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Were you still going to revert that section on Chloe O'Brian? I've added a 30minute In use tag, but I have to try to keep to that time frame. If you can't do it, I'll just change the article back to (underconstruction) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cro0016 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually I just wanted to call it a day. We certainly got a lot of work done in a matter of hours and it is late at night where I live. Feel free to stretch the time frame if you need to. I'll try to find sources for the article tomorrow. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 05:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Very well, I will take down the (in-use) tag for now. However we accomplished something great today, what I'd like to know, is where did you find all those sources? If we can save this article, I'm sure there are a fewe others out there that can also be saved. Steve Crossin (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
At first I just googled her name. I'm not sure if this is a bad thing, but when I googled "Nadia Yassir" and "Arab" together I found a lot of results. "Nadia Yassir" and "24" also worked pretty well. I'm looking forward to working on other articles tomorrow. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 05:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Task List?
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Just a suggestion, but maybe we should create a task list of articles to work on (not necessarialy 24 related), but ones that require attention, and fix them up. I think it's a good way to contribute to Wikipedia. What do you think? Steve Crossin (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know of one task list I'm actively working on, thats the Minor Characters in 24 Page. I also agree with you, the pages on Morris O'Brian, and several others, do not warrant to be in the Minor CTU agents, or, if they do, the text needs to be cut down alot. Steve Crossin (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Nadia Yassir-Review
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think that now we have established more citations to show the chatacters notability, that we should ask for a review of the article, to have the notability tag removed. What do you think?Steve Crossin (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion
Could you hold on the editing of the page, just for a moment? I added an (inuse) tag, I lost a lot of editing because the article had already beem edited, and I didn't want to interfere with your edit. Thanks Steve Crossin (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats quite fine, I always look at WP:AGF. I always assume good faith of an editor, I think it was you who cleaned up the Minor Characters in 24 page, whoever cleaned up that article deserves a pat on the back. Steve Crossin (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to edit the article now, I divided it up better, but the article's length needs to be cut down majorly, and also, some of the characters should not be there, they still have their own article. Steve Crossin (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a question, I know if an article is marked for speedy deletion, you can place a (holdon) tag to notify you are contesting the deletion. Is there such a tag for contesting merges? If not, maybe one should be created. Steve Crossin (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The question I have, is who do I ask for it to be removed? Would I actually have to ask a member of ArbCom for an exemption, as the article now meets the requirements of WP:FICT, and keeping this tag on the article does not give due credit to the work on it that the both of us have done. Or would we be OK in just asking an administrator? Steve Crossin (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up the rest of the page. I would have done it, however I didn't know what to delete, and what to keep. How did you decide? Steve Crossin (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration Injunction
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It looks as if you were the one that cleaned up the whole Minor Characters of 24 page to put them by season. The redirects don't have a problem anymore, though they go to the page now, not each character. You did such a great job - I could not do that lol - even if I had the time.
Here's a question: the TOCright template, would it be better if it were by itself and above (taking away that template) so that scrolling down and finding it in the way of the first paragraph would not be necessary? I was about to remove it so that it would be one of the first things you see on the page, but then I figured I'd ask, since it looks like you put it there.
~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I'm not the one that put the template there and I don't have a strong preference about where the TOC will be. Moving the TOC to the right may make the list look shorter which might be a good thing since the article has so many characters. If you think otherwise, it really doesn't matter to me. миражinred سَراب ٭ (speak, my child...) 07:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Merger-Minor CTU Agents in 24
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
I've seen two CTU agents that have been proposed for merging into the Minor CTU agents in 24 page, one is Nadia Yassir, the other, Mike Doyle. However, I think there may be more. Would you be able to help me search through the 24 characters, and find any others?
Also, what sources did you search for the citations you found for the Nadia Yassir article? I think the article on Chloe O'Brian could be improved in the same fashion as we (mainly you) improved the Nadia article. Steve Crossin (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If you google the real name of the actress (Mary Lynn Rajskub) along with "24" you will probably find her interviews which you can use to make a section about casting and the concept of the character. This is important since there needs to be an out-of-universe section. With so many articles that have already been merged, there probably aren't that many articles recommended for merging, but I will look for them. Finding secondary sources will take some time. Time has its peculiar way of helping you dig up sources. миражinred سَراب ٭ (speak, my child...) 07:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll certainly try that. I think, however, the merge of Mike Doyle will eventually go through, unless real-world notability can be established, it doesn't have much hope. And also, the article has been reduced to such a small size, it would require a lot of work. Would this be something you would be interested in working on with me?
Also, I'm using 24 Wikia to find a list of CTU agents, which I will search for in Wikipedia, find any that have been proposed for merging, and list that on the Minor CTU agents merge tag. Steve Crossin (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't find any agents suggested for merging although there are articles that have tags that says it should be merged onto other lists. The characters that were tagged were Navi Araz, Dina Araz, Marcus Alvers, Reza Naiyeer, and Reed Pollock - all super-minor villians - and Josh and Philip Bauer. In my opinion, all of them should be merged. Also, if you really can't find anything for Mike Doyle, I wouldn't be too worried. Not being able to find sources is probably a good indicator that it can't have an article of its own - for now. This is my own prediction, but if Nadia comes back, I think Doyle will come back too, but that's for some other time. миражinred سَراب ٭ (speak, my child...) 07:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, they should be merged. However, they are currently under dispute by ArbCom, so merging them is not a good idea, at least for now. And I think establishing Mike Doyle as a notable character who should have their own article is something that would be very difficult to establish. May I suggest the article be rewritten completely, in preparation for merging it? Merging the page in it's current state would be a very bad idea. Steve Crossin (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Could I suggest the Karen Hayes article possibly be worked on? However, most of the article is either a plot summary, or original research. How would I go about improving the article? And the links I found for Hayes could be used in the article. I also replied regarding Keeler. Steve Crossin (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
RfC on Strider12
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
OK. I've put up the beginning of an RfC on Strider12 (talk·contribs). Please go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Strider12 and take a look. If you're willing to certify that there is a dispute which you've tried but failed to help resolve, then please sign the section labeled "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". If it's not cosigned by 2 editors in the next 48 hours, it will be deleted. Your input is welcome. MastCellTalk23:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
