User talk:Love Robin

Talk to me…

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Kim Possible characters, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ego and Warmonger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Kim Possible characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

CHU

Do you mean you'll accept User:Love Robin or User:LoveRobin? Right now you're actually requesting the name User:Love Robin (with or without the space) which is an odd and very long name (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am requestiong, the "(with or without space)" is not meant to be part of the Requested New Name, and the preferences are as you've listed, with-space first, please. Should I edit the request section? — ZigZagStudios (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course fix it. Chose one. Edit it now (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank You. — ZigZagStudios (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation

I confirm that this account has requested User:Love robin as a doppelganger account. Love Robin (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Kim Possible characters

The article info may be correct, but most of the references are from the show itself, which is a primary source for Wikipedia's purposes. Trivialist (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that primary source is for Real World issues and fails when applied to things such as recreational TV shows such as Kim Possible. There is a discussion about that somewhere I stumbled across before but do not have the time to find again. The upshot was that for some matters the *spirit* of the WP rules should be followed more so than the *word* of them.

Thing is, for a subject like Kim Possible's characters, the show is the ONLY proper source. There are NO secondary sources which can provide accurate information. IMDB is tapped for many of the more obscure VA info, but IMDB is considered an unreliable source due to its open-edit nature. Could go to a variety of other KP related websites and wikias, but what you'll find is the same information repeated verbatim (even if a little outdated) from this very article, which likewise makes them unreliable.

I ask that you remove the banner. I ask as a courtesy as I'm quite willing to involve an admin in this. I say this as I can't see anything which says you are one. You were directly asked on your Talk page if you were, I see no response.

Also, I requested you to discuss this on the article's Talk page, which is where contributing editors would be easiest involved. —Love Robin (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not an admin, I'm not aware of any rule that says only admins can tag articles for cleanup. But since I don't feel that strongly about Kim Possible, I've taken off the {{primary sources}} tag. I still think it falls under {{in-universe}}, though. Trivialist (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Love Robin asked me to comment on this matter. First, on the "behaviorial" issues. No, Trivialist is not an admin. That, however, is irrelevant here. Any user can, and should, tag issues that they see in articles. Tagging is never an administrative issue. Whenever an editor sees something wrong in an article, they should either 1) fix it, or 2) tag it so that others also realize there is problem; then they can fix it. Sometimes the problem will be corrected quickly, and sometimes it will take years.

Second, as to the tag itself--in my opinion, it seems perfectly appropriate, though I'm not actually the best judge of this. This is because I'm a fairly strict interpreter of Wikipedia's policies; in my opinion, if the only sources for this list are the show itself, then we should probably consider deleting the list. Wikipedia is not, according to my interpretation of our policies, a place to store people's "analysis" of TV shows, etc. If no one has ever discussed these characters in a reliable source, we should probably consider cutting the list; at a bare minimum, we should cut it down to a very basic list with the names of the characters and only a one or two sentence description. Basically, what I mean is, if no one has ever seen fit to discuss these characters in RS, then why are we reporting on it? There is a certain rationale for keeping the list--the idea is that it would be included in the main article, but it's too long to put there; in that case, it's "notability" is really dependent on the main article. Personally, I still question why we need such a list, but not enough to actually argue about it, especially since I know I'll likely lose because other people have what I consider to be an incorrect view of what sort of information is important enough for an encyclopedia. But tagging the page is still appropriate; we really do want an independent source, and if there isn't one, our readers deserve to know that. And for many TV shows, independent sources do exist--often there are "guides" or "tell all" books that give a good place to work from (and, again, if there isn't one for this show, I question if it's important enough to have a stand alone list article). We probably don't need multiple tags; "in-universe" and "primary sources" are really close enough that one will suffice to warn readers and spur future editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Qwyrxian.

To clarify, I was not accusing Trivialist of being anything he was not, just seeking clarification as to how *I* was vibing from him. I tend to give Admins the respect I hope to get in the venues where I am one.

I'm one of those who defend the need of such things as this List. I'm one of those who feel Wikipedia should/could become a "compendium of all human knowledge"(The Time Machine (2002)). Still, I appreciate the viewpoints and thank you again for taking the time to respond. —Love Robin (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Widow's Peak article

This article has been the subject of repeated vandalism by many people. One can trace the history of edits to follow them.Bettymnz4 (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Speculation

Hi, please don't add speculation to articles as you did here at List of Kim Possible characters. Speculation and personal interpretation constitutes original research. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)