User talk:Gladys j cortez/Archive4

Request

I think that FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman should be semi-protected from IP adresses, since a lot of IPs have been inserting nonsense that Tom Kenny will take Jim Conroy's place in season 4 (which is nothing more than unsourced rumors). Elbutler (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, something is wrong with the wikitables of List of Martha Speaks episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbutler (talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to be ignoring me i have brought proof of the problem, look at these two edits to FETCH! with Ruffman and List of FETCH with Ruff Ruffman episodes. And it's the same user every-time, you probally know him, you've talked to him before. Now that i have proof, now will semi-protect the page? Elbutler (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

re: gentle request

Thanks for the notice/suggestion. It is partially a habit I got when countedits were still relevant (not to me, but to others that would comment against my edits). I will try to refrain from doing that, at least for the more visited pages (although I think there might be a method to see in the watchlist only the last edit by a user). As for the RfA, I am not that happy with the way it is run. I am not going to say that I have a better solution, but for example I personally don't like how minor stuff such as lack of comments for edits or not labeling small edits as minor relate to the ability to be a good admin. Also, changing editing habits for the sake of admin eligibility is one of the most negative parts of the process. Even though the ideal admin would do this, favoring candidates that mimick this behavior is not what I hope from admins - in a community where users are ideally expected to contribute without waiting for something in return. Thanks again, Nergaal (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

WordGirl

Come on now you Gladys J. Cortez. The WordGirl article is 32 kilobytes long and why couldn't I add the long note? Why? Simulation12 (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 World Series disruption

Killervogel5 is being very disruptive on the formatting of the 2008 World Series pages as I have been trying to format the page as the same as the rest of the 2008 Major League Baseball postseason pages (2008 NL and AL Division Series, 2008 NL and AL Championship Series). He keeps reverting all my edits and says his version is better. Nope, he has become very aggressive in my opinion. I ask that he be blocked from editing privlidges for an undetermined time for these disruptive reverts. NoseNuggets (talk) 10:39 PM US EDT Oct 22 2008.

In defense, the two users actively involved with this page have been trying to maintain it in such a way that complies with the Manual of Style. NoseNuggets refuses to defer to the original style as per MOS, and will not listen to reason involving changes, instead citing his own work on other pages. He also provided me with an unprovoked level-4 vandalism warning, rather than addressing the issue on the talk page as requested. I stand on my record. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have had my eye on the 2008 World Series article for a few months now, I have attempted to bring forth a new format in an attempt to get the article up to GA status—a would be first for World Series articles. Myself and Kv attempted to discuss the issues with NoseNuggets, but he refused to further conversation. Usually, as I'm sure you know, articles are modeled after currently existing FA and GAs, but in this case we do not have that luxury, instead we are trying to create it. I can understand the want for continuity, but this is obviously a special case. Kv has been assisting me and we have written the majority of the article together, he has been very helpful and I have not seen any evidence of "vandalism" on his part. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Blackngold29 03:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I see.

Wait: Let's start with what I DON'T see first.

• I don't see any effort to talk this out on the article talk page. Carrying on a discussion via edit summaries and usertalk pages is MUCH less efficient than doing so in the article talk page, and article talk also makes it easier for other users to add their input. Plus it removes those annoying one-side-of-the-discussion-only conversations like the one on NN's talk page.
• I ALSO don't see anyone actually citing the relevant sections of MoS. This makes a tired, hungry admin just home from work VERY cranky, when she's expected to do all the legwork of looking up and quoting relevant passages at you.

Now, on to what I notice, in no particular order of relevance.

• Killervogel5: you're over 3rr today and should probably be blocked for that. I'm not going to do it this time, but please count before you revert--seriously.
• NoseNuggets: First, off-topic--for the love of all that is good in this world, would you PULLLEEEZE archive your talk page? That table-of-contents is like scroll-wheel hell for me. Now, on to my ON-topic point, which is: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Some of your comments show a bit more 'tude than is helpful in an actual DISCUSSION. Discussion means one side states their points civilly, and the next person says--again, without attitude--"I disagree, and here's why:" followed by the relevant MoS citations. I don't see that here.
• To no one in particular: Just because things have "always" been done a certain way, that doesn't mean that every similar thing needs to follow the pattern. Again, not having any relevant MoS diffs, I can't say one way or the other which view they support--but it's at least within the realm of possibility that the old articles are not following MoS correctly either. This is why MoS cites are needed in this discussion--as EVIDENCE of what the MoS actually says, instead of three differing interpretations.
• One comment I CAN make about the article and its MoS-ness, because this is a peeve of mine: FLAGICONS in infoboxes are bad. MoS says they're not to be used for decoration, and that's just how they're being used there. Everyone knows what "USA" or "CAN" means; you don't need a flag icon too.

So: who's right?

• Can't say--I have no relevant MoS diffs from which to judge. Bring them to the article talkpage and we can work from there. Meantime, I'm not blocking anyone, and I would HIGHLY (underline, underline, underline, exclamation points) recommend that you take this conversation to the ARTICLE talk page, there to discuss them CIVILLY and CALMLY like adults. Now, if any one of the three of you can't do those things--relevant MoS cites to support your point, and considering each other's arguments like civil adults with no sniping--well, THEN I'll be able to tell who might need to be blocked. But it's not going to get that far, now is it??Gladys J Cortez 04:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(Oh, and one more thing...next time you need a baseball issue decided, please keep in mind that you're speaking to a Cubs fan here, and thus in my mind you are all baaad, baaaaaad people because THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE US PLAYING THE RAYS!! Good grief, men, it's been a full doggone CENTURY!! Do you people have no COMPASSION?(/baseball-related trauma venting))Gladys J Cortez 04:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. I hope we'll be able to talk something out, I've never had any problem with talking. A Cubs fan who thinks their team is suffering... you have no idea, lol. Blackngold29 12:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This thread is exactly (underline underline underline, exclamation points) why I knew you'd be a good admin. How refreshing! 8 points for Gladys. Why 8? Idunno. Let me ask you, why not 8? What makes you think 6, or 10, or a billion, would've been more special? 8 it is. Eight is Enough. .. Ohandanotherthing... (and the Cubs were supposed to be playing the Twins, fool. Not the Rays, the T-W-I-N-S.) Keeper ǀ 76 13:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

More baseball stuff

On semi-related topic, i recently made an edit to the History of the Philadelphia Phillies article to include recent playoff results and Killervogel5 reverted my change. I was just curious about the exact reason for this. I don't understand why this revert was made, or why my edit could be considered "potentially controversial". If all I needed was to add a source, wouldn't it just have been easier to note that than revert the edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.243.2 (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see where "Why Can't Us?" comes from--and the other header is way more descriptive of the actual contents. For the rest, we're going to need to ask Killervogel5, so I'm off to do that. Gladys J Cortez 04:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning is that there was wayyy too much detail inserted for this particular article. Information that specific belongs in an article that's built to be highly detailed about this season; i.e., 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season, where the info already existed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 10:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I've also just completed the outlining of the appropriate parts of MOS for the talk page of the 2008 WS, if you'd care to look. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 10:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. It was easier to just say MOS at the time rather than this page, this page, this page, oh wait this doesn't fit in an edit summary omgwut... Should have gone to the talk page. Wish NN had gone when I asked him to so that none of us would be involved in this mess. My bad. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 11:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering how would be a good way to incorporate the "why can't us" slogan into the history of the phillies article. It really is a big deal here in philadelphia, and the slogan and the story behind it has been making national news (it was in USA today), so it should be significant enough to be in the article. If my only problem was not citing sources, i can take care of that; i was just wondering how i could incorporate that without having me edit reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.243.2 (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I was thinking vandalism in the sense that the information had been added and removed multiple times already and they still were not getting the message. But, it was reaching on my part, certainly. Had I not been rushed and feeling impatient (and annoyed) I would have given it more thought and used a different edit summary. A hidden message might be needed there, though I am not certain it would do any good. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I will put the hidden message in later, and hope it does some good. Thanks for your message. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, but thanking you for the adding the semi-protect on Super Why!. I myself added two hidden messages on not adding "fan fiction" (fancruft) and altering the voice cast members (I know that Angela Bassett does not do any voices in the series myself), and glad you caught the vandal red-handed. I suggest we make that semi-protect permament as soon as the original semi-protect expires. NoseNuggets (talk) 2:55 AM US EST Nov 3 2008.

really?

Hey, thanks for keeping an eye on things, but what do you mean? I have something like a iron clad thing where I will absolutely not revert an edit more than once per page per day. I don't believe I've broken this since I instituted it. This edit here reverted three of PCPP's[1], but I thought that only counts as one. None of his edits were constructive or reasonable, and he never discusses any of the edits he does--it is hard to 'prosecute' his behaviour because he only does once every month or so, then disappears. The rest of the changes I made were reasoned and explained on the talk page. I know they included restoring removed material, but did not understand that 'revert' took such a narrow definition? This is a really important point, by the way. Edit warring is ridiculous and destructive, and I will have no part in it. To explain what I mean, if I had changed the re-added material slightly, would that still have counted as a 'revert'? My intent and action was not that of a revert, but of a regular edit, at least as I see it. Wonder if you know what I'm getting at. I understood that I reverted once on that page only, and of course for what I understand to be a sensible reason--but please let me know if I'm missing anything.--Asdfg12345 16:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC) np. better to keep editors on their toes anyway!--Asdfg12345 01:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A learning experience. You handled it with good humour and amicability--what more could one ask for?--Asdfg12345 13:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gladys, I had attempted to restore back, with the permission of the user who had made the change[2], the original namespace of the article - but I find am having trouble with the move - with the talk page not being copied - perhaps because the page was already existing. I am not sure how this could be resolved - could you kindly help. Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, in response to User:Asdfg12345's accusations, the Falun Gong articles are under probation due to long-term abuse and edit wars between pro and anti-editors, to which the above user was involved in, who edits nothing but FLG-related articles. The outcome of the arbitration stated that all FLG related material-should be kept to a standard of NPOV and reliable sourcing, but since then the ArbCom has largely turned a blind eye the the current state of FLG articles, and several editors has expressed concern with the state of POV in these articles [3], [4], [5] In my last edit, [6], I really don't see what that particular article should be given an undue weight and several paragraphs to an "report" made by pro-FLG sources, and an article supportive of FLG given quoteboxes, yet an article critical of FLG should be dismissed with attacks on its supposed outside links, and a NPOV tag was consistantly being removed by User:Dilip rajeev. The particular editor has a habit of tracking my edits to FLG articles and revert them on sight. Due to the amount of edit-warring which occurs on FLG articles, I really don't have any time for regular edits, which would definitely result in edit wars with several single-purpose accounts.--PCPP (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Barney & Friends

Hey,
why did you cancel my edit? I'm from Israel, i used to watch "Barney", and "Shesh" (Six) changed its name to "Kids Channel"... Edenc1 • Talk 09:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't eat your shirt

The copyvio is from sesameworkshop.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: stupid Fall Out Boy

Oh, I am not in favor of removing the dab message. I think that is an appropriate sop to the emoticons. But, I cannot countenance having any other mention of the album in the article. Thank you for your message. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Translation request

Hey Gladys, not sure if you've seen it yet, but I replied to your thread at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Need English/Chinese-fluent editor with knowledge of Chinese medicine. :) GlassCobra 10:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good. Well, listen, this is sort of unrelated, but I'm concerned about this edit of yours. As admins, we're supposed to strongly adhere to WP:RBI and Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls; your block message and edit summary both come off poorly. Also, in light of seeing your request for dispassionate and calm editing in the message seen when editing your talk page, I'd like to ask that you try to follow this as well. I know that the job is tough, please ask me if you need any advice. GlassCobra 14:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I know you will, I have great faith in you. :) I'm here if you need me! GlassCobra 18:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not good at Chinese medicine (particularly their English translation of those medicine). They just tend to have different pronunciation and/or spelling that Chinese people don't understand. Have you tried searching them on Google? If you found something in Chinese where you think the information is obtained, show me the url and I can probably put things together that makes sense. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Gladys

I'm a 6-year-old kid, I have to get mad because Elbutler keeps reverting all my stuff and she is already 34 years old. Doesn't she know the meaning of wikipedia???? Wikipedia is not a fighting centre. --Simulation12 (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Now you are 6? I daresay that no 6 year old nor twelve year old finds their way into editing templates..they simply don't have the attention span. I find the times (or blocks of times rather) that you happen to be editing rather interesting...implying a tremendous amount of freedom for a youngster. Those times coupled with the fact that you claim to be in school do not square up. I think you've confirmed for others today what I've thought for weeks.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Caillou

Good call Gladys on the hidden cancer warning - nice shot! The only thing i wanted to ask is, has there ever been any checking done through refs to Helen Desputeaux's bios and sites to find out why a 4 year old is a bald as a coot? I would have said the C word, thinking that chemo would be the only thing which would leave a kid that young bald, but maybe she gives some other explanation somewhere... I will go a hunting and see if i can hit anything! Regards and try some Calamine lotion for the itching, or an oatmeal bath. It may help. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It happened!!!Someone actually mentioned the C Word!!! Go on Gladys, grab yer banhammer!!! See [here! :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Something to make your day better

Kids getting you down? Maybe this will help. Video is here. Too bad we can't wire Wikipedia, eh? 8^D ,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's who

Just a quick FYI, not all of the WW books are scams and such. The early ones beginning in 1899 actually were independently published and listed those in the top of their field. Unfortunately they devolved into the mess that they are over the last century. I researched this before going forward with citations for a few bio articles. spryde | talk 19:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

About WNET...

"You may very well be right. HOWEVER--you give no source for your edits. Whereas, my edit was SOURCED. If you find a better, WP:VER source that says Newark, go right ahead and add it. However, I'm wondering what POSSIBLE source could be more authoratative than the stations' OWN WEBSITE. If you find one, though, go right ahead."

There is one absolute source that verifies me, and it's at the near-bottom of the WNET page:

• Template:TVQ

And, check out the top-of-the-hour station IDs, and you'll see that they read "WNET Newark NJ/WNET New York".

From what I've seen, they prefer to arrange stations by their city of license around here. Runteldat (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

MFD

Hi, as one of the contributors to it were you aware of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion? ϢereSpielChequers 12:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Update. It got moved to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion 2 and speedy kept per Snow. ϢereSpielChequers 23:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'll e-mail you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

More on the Super Why! Vandal

He's been spotted using other IPs from Quest upon further review. Stopping him is a pain in the wazoo if you ask me. If he does, then we may as well block the IPs he's been using from there, so he's in the Rocky Mountain area of the USA as far as I know. Keep a sharp eye out. NoseNuggets (talk) 4:28 PM US EST Nov 15 2008.

User:Runteldat

Hello, is the protection of User:Runteldat user/talk pages in response to something, as I would like to have seen a response before blocking....just in the off chance it was an unrelated (to Rollo) editor. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 15, 2008 @ 23:54

Ah, I didn't see the editwar, sorry about that. I will make comment on the ANI discussion. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • November 15, 2008 @ 23:59

User:Akyoyo94

• Akyoyo94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, if you get a chance, could you take a look at this autoblocked user requesting unblock. Seems he is autoblocked as a result of your block of CREEVESUX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). CIreland (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Foile a Deux

How was removing the line "this might be the new fallout boy cd, i think" from the article destructive at all? Did you even see the edit history? Not to mention a better (and well-placed) sentence was already written before it regarding that. Please use actual discretion before threatening random people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.221.165 (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Also, looking at the history, you mentioned not to add any information about it at all...I removed the information to begin with. I'm not sure that you should be an admin (or whatever you are) with such poor comprehension skills. As to the relevance of that CD, although I removed that line, I fail to see how it is more irrelevant than the rest of the "In Media" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.221.165 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Glad to see I antagonized you by pointing out your mistake and rather rude (and unnecessary) response to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.221.165 (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Please check your email for junk mail again. :) --barneca (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)