User talk:Calvin Grant: Difference between revisions
Undid revision 440628776 by Calvin Grant (talk) and adding further explanation |
Calvin Grant (talk | contribs) i do not recognize the validity of a warning from an editor who did the exact same thing and who posted it in service of his own agenda. i undid his edit 3 times, the same as he did mine. |
||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:::Well I suggest that you mention this with consensus. You don't delete or redirect something without going to the article talk page, and discussing it with other editors. Thank You -- [[User:MelbourneStar1|MelbourneStar☆]] <sup>[[User_talk:MelbourneStar1|(talk to me)]]</sup> 09:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
:::Well I suggest that you mention this with consensus. You don't delete or redirect something without going to the article talk page, and discussing it with other editors. Thank You -- [[User:MelbourneStar1|MelbourneStar☆]] <sup>[[User_talk:MelbourneStar1|(talk to me)]]</sup> 09:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::: Well I suggest that you have no idea what you're talking about. And I suggest that you stop wasting your time undoing legitimate editorial actions and spend it on finding sources instead. [[User:Calvin Grant|Calvin Grant]] ([[User talk:Calvin Grant#top|talk]]) 09:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
:::: Well I suggest that you have no idea what you're talking about. And I suggest that you stop wasting your time undoing legitimate editorial actions and spend it on finding sources instead. [[User:Calvin Grant|Calvin Grant]] ([[User talk:Calvin Grant#top|talk]]) 09:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
== 3RR == |
|||
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Brazil (Law & Order)]]. Users are expected to [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building in talk pages|collaborate]] with others and avoid editing [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptively]].<br> |
|||
In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] states that: |
|||
# '''Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.''' |
|||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' |
|||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If you continue to edit war, you '''may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing without further notice.'''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> -- [[User:MelbourneStar1|MelbourneStar☆]] <sup>[[User_talk:MelbourneStar1|(talk to me)]]</sup> 09:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]] or removed because it was a misuse of a [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace|warning or blocking template]]. Please use the [[User talk:Sandbox for user warnings|user warnings sandbox]] for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our [[Wikipedia:Introduction|introduction page]] to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tempabuse1 --> -- [[User:MelbourneStar1|MelbourneStar☆]] <sup>[[User_talk:MelbourneStar1|(talk to me)]]</sup> 10:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm returning these templates to your page, and adding some further explanation. Any edit warring can be subject to the [[WP:3RR]] rule, but there is a bright line at 3 edits. The above template is to warn you that you are '''''at''''' that bright line and that you should immediately cease whatever you're doing that resulted in the warning being given. |
|||
:It is not a case of getting to '''''4''''' reversions, then getting the above warning (for going over 3RR), and being blocked if you then '''''still''''' continue. If you revert again, you can be blocked immediately. If you understand, you're now free to remove the above per [[WP:OWNTALK]]. If you have further questions, feel free to use <nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki>. -''<font face="Tahoma">[[User:Danjel|danjel]]</font>'' ([[User_talk:Danjel|talk to me]]) 10:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:23, 21 July 2011
Welcome
|
DYK nomination of I Am a Camera (film)
Hi. I've nominated I Am a Camera (film), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. —Bruce1eetalk 12:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Law & Order episode articles
Hi Calvin Grant, and Welcome to Wikipedia! :)
I'm just notifying you to tell you that I have reverted most of your redirects to Law & Order episode articles, due to the fact that some, if not most episodes do have reliable sources, and do meet Wikipedia episode guidlines. Also, all articles do have a talk page, where you can discuss with other editors why you're redirecting the article.
If there is anything further, whether it be problems, questions, or any assistance, please feel free to contact me. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 08:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there, I'm going to be changing back everything you did because the episodes do not have reliable sources that show the episodes are notable on their own. I suggest that you do not undo any changes unless you can prove that such sources exist. Many of these episodes have had notes on them for two, three and even four years requesting sources. Four years seems more than long enough to wait for sources. Calvin Grant (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't you know that "Episodes serve as references to themselves"? remove ones that have no source/reference section in them. I'll revert back all the articles that infact do have sources. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Episodes serve as references for themselves for establishing what happens within the episode. Describing the plot, listing guest stars, information like that. The episodes do not establish their own notability. For an individual episode to be notable there need to be independent reliable sources that discuss the specific episodes. That doesn't mean blogs like TV.com, it doesn't mean IMDB that anyone can contribute to and it doesn't mean TV by the numbers ratings listings. If you can provide such sources for any episode then I encourage you to add them to the articles. Without them the articles should not and cannot stand alone. Calvin Grant (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, actually references for the reception of the episode + the fact many of those episodes you pointed out just happen to be in the final season of the show, less than four years ago, as you state. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- And before you do continue removing content from later seasons that do infact have sources, I request there to be consensus on the matter, and if the result is "delete" you may proceed, by all means. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Episodes serve as references for themselves for establishing what happens within the episode. Describing the plot, listing guest stars, information like that. The episodes do not establish their own notability. For an individual episode to be notable there need to be independent reliable sources that discuss the specific episodes. That doesn't mean blogs like TV.com, it doesn't mean IMDB that anyone can contribute to and it doesn't mean TV by the numbers ratings listings. If you can provide such sources for any episode then I encourage you to add them to the articles. Without them the articles should not and cannot stand alone. Calvin Grant (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Um, if you paid attention instead of just undoing everything, you would see that many of the articles have been requesting reliable sources since January 2007, well over 4 years ago. I did not say that EVERY episode has been without sources for 4 years. A source that establishes nothing beyond "this episode aired and this many people watched it" does not establish the notability of the episode. Every episode that ever aired on television has ratings information; the existence of that information doesn't make every episode that ever aired on television independently notable. So, again, please do not undo redirects unless you can provide independent sources for the specific episode. If they don't have sources available like for example Blackmail (Law & Order) or Dignity (Law & Order) or Zebras (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit) then stop restoring them. I'm not interested in deleting information and redirects are not deletion. The information remains, awaiting reliable sources. Which I again suggest you find before undoing the redirects. Calvin Grant (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well I suggest that you mention this with consensus. You don't delete or redirect something without going to the article talk page, and discussing it with other editors. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well I suggest that you have no idea what you're talking about. And I suggest that you stop wasting your time undoing legitimate editorial actions and spend it on finding sources instead. Calvin Grant (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well I suggest that you mention this with consensus. You don't delete or redirect something without going to the article talk page, and discussing it with other editors. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't you know that "Episodes serve as references to themselves"? remove ones that have no source/reference section in them. I'll revert back all the articles that infact do have sources. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)