Jump to content

User talk:The Optimistic One/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Proposed deletion of The Dogfather (film)

Hello, Optimistic Wikipedian. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, The Dogfather (film), for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 00:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, The Optimistic One/Archive 3. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Thanks for the heads up. Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1991–2007)

Although WWE did not delist it until March 2008, the retirement year is 2007. Their own website says this. http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/cruiser --JDC808 ♫ 22:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ray Moylette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juan Garcia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Emilia Clarke, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. –Davey2010Talk 03:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Look up her height on Google and you will find the same results, no reverting needed. Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Baker (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manhunt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hilderaldo Bellini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CTE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Better Call Saul (season 1). 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:

  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.

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. -- AlexTW 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Showed proof to the other user via reliable source on their talk page before last revert. Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't give you license to say "I am right" and continue edit warring. You must gain consensus, and so far, you've failed to do that. Next revert may get you blocked. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The editor has clearly ceased reverting. No threats are needed here as the discussion is still ongoing. -- AlexTW 18:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I feel insulted that you would threaten to block me after all the work i have put into improving Wikipedia for the past few years, just because i had a disagreement with you and another individual over whether a TV show is owned by Netflix or not. As AlexTW pointed out, I have clearly stopped reverting. Also a while ago you were lecturing me about having manners when i clearly said nothing wrong or insulting. I suggest you make an apology as soon as you read this message. Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You two give me a swift pain. Alex, just as I think you're actually going to act like a human being again, you revert to hall monitor mode and leave another snotty message that is of no help whatsoever. OW, if you think a routine warning is a threat, you really need to develop a much thicker skin. I didn't threaten to block you, and there's nothing to apologize for. You were edit warring, and that merits a warning; it's WP practice. You blew off the warning Alex gave you, which suggests you planned to continue to revert, so I added another one. Try to not to read too much into things. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 08:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Just like you. Instead of helping a new editor out, you threaten and belittle them over an issue that has already included. Shame on you. Go on your way and scare off other new editors by reverting them and not helping out. Optimistic, you're doing a great job, keep it up! -- AlexTW 17:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I clearly stopped reverting as soon as i seen Alex's message (which was actually necessary), then you make a threat to block me when i had done nothing wrong in the first place which is very rude and immature. It's also very hypocritical of you to criticize me for a lack of manners when you clearly do not have any. Alex's comment was very fair and unbiased as he very smartly stated "No threats are needed here as the discussion is still ongoing". The Optimistic One (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gloves Off (Better Call Saul), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gordon Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Better Call Saul summaries

Hi there, thanks for your efforts regarding creating the season articles for Better Call Saul. However, I noticed you have significantly shrunken the summaries, with some of them being only around 60 words (they can be up to 200). The problem here is that I noticed you mainly just delete large portions of the summaries, which effectively remove complete storylines/characters from episodes, and essentially make the summary actually incomplete. Here for example, you basically just deleted the second half from each of the summaries, as a way to "condense" them; this really isn't the way to do it. Plus, the first two summaries for season 2 (203 and 202 words, respectively) are perfectly fine. It's the ones that are 250+ words that need to be trimmed. As an example, the subplot involving Mike, Nacho, and Pryce in the first two episodes: only the middle of that plot is in the summaries, because the beginning of it from "Switch" was deleted and the conclusion of it in "Cobbler" is also gone. So, it basically kinda comes out of nowhere. I can gladly help with the summaries if you wish. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Drovethrughosts, yes, what you said makes perfect sense, do everything you can with summaries if desired, if you want to ask me anything regarding Better Call Saul-related articles or anything else on Wikipedia, please feel free to discuss on my talk page. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Review my article

Sir please kindly check this page. Now I've edited the source of information. This page is now correct and if not then please inform me https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rahul_Singh Nakulsharma.2001 (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Please check this Nakulsharma.2001 (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Re-phrased article for you Nakulsharma.2001. The Optimistic One (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter McRobbie, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Law and Order and World Trade Center (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Kim Wexler. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I created alot of articles for Better Call Saul episodes that were copied for Kim Wexler, so which ones do i mention. The Optimistic One (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

User Page

I'm glad you liked the layout of my user page enough to use it yourself. -- AlexTW 00:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Just the favourite movies and top edited pages, everything else was there before i knew you. The Optimistic One (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- AlexTW 00:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well thank you very much for your kind obligation Alex, The Whovian! The Optimistic One (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Witness (Better Call Saul), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fifi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Better Call Saul (season 2) (March 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
This submission appears to be taken from https://alchetron.com/Better-Call-Saul. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.
You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. Onel5969 TT me 19:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello, The Optimistic One! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 TT me 19:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Cora Staunton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rugby player
Davitt College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rugby player

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Better Call Saul

Congratulations on getting that second season draft article ready. That was quite the ordeal for you, but I think you've done a great job. Maybe take your time with the third season as the fourth likely won't be airing for a while, no rush. Esuka323 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah i know, it was a prolonged experience. The fourth season is expected to air in September, so that's a good while away, and of course there's WP:NORUSH. The Optimistic One (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Friends episodes

If you are planning to restore individual pages of FRIENDS episodes, would be helpful to include Nielsen ratings of the episodes as well. You can get the ratings from season pages e.g. here. Hope that helps. Coderzombie (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheers. The Optimistic One (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Better Call Saul (season 2) has been accepted

Better Call Saul (season 2), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 TT me 13:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

The One Where Nana Dies Twice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to David Crane
The One with the Dozen Lasagnas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Adam Chase
The One with the Monkey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Adam Chase

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Better Call Saul (season 3) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Better Call Saul (season 3). Thanks! Onel5969 TT me 15:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The Optimistic One (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Looks like we'll have to take the draft to a consensus. The Optimistic One (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I've submitted a review request. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Better Call Saul (season 3) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Better Call Saul (season 3). Thanks! Bkissin (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Better Call Saul (season 3) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Better Call Saul (season 3). Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Better Call Saul (season 3) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Better Call Saul (season 3). Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Better Call Saul (season 3) has been accepted

Better Call Saul (season 3), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 TT me 18:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It took that much to get the Season 3 article approved. How on Earth could the Season 4 article have enough info? It hasn't even got a release date yet. -- AlexTW 00:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Season 8 of Game of Thrones has an article and that's a year away. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It has serious production information and an episode table. BCS4 has three lines of production. -- AlexTW 01:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
It has a decent plot section, lots of sources and a good lead. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
So we're back to this? That had a lot of plot, sources and a lead. Didn't make it valid for an article, did it? Something should be an article only if the real-world information is strongly more present than in-universe material. -- AlexTW 02:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Better Call Saul (season 4) (April 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
This submission appears to be taken from https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/06/better-call-saul-is-chuck-dead. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.
You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. EROS message 10:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello, The Optimistic One! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! EROS message 10:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Better Call Saul (season 4) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Better Call Saul (season 4). Thanks! EROS message 10:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Better Caul Sall (season 4)

So, no comment about Draft:Better Call Saul (season 4) being no better than the first version of the first season article? This is the exact same case of when Drmargi kept reverting you on the Season 1 article. Now you submit another AFC at the bottom, trying to hide it? Again, the exact same sort of deception as when you moved the Season 2 article to Better Call Saul (Season 2). I recommend you start editing more collaboratively and take on the suggestions of those who have been editing longer than yourself. -- AlexTW 23:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, submitting the second AFC at the bottom was not intentional, i simply resubmitted the draft for review by pressing the resubmit button, i don't know why it was put at the bottom. If you had your own way, only the first season would be an article and the rest would be drafts because of your poor communication skills. If i didn't submit the other two seasons for review, they would probably still be drafts. Drmargi threatened to block me for reverting another editors edit's even though i had stopped reverting as YOU pointed out. Didn't have much luck trying to delete Kim Wexler and Chuck McGill's character articles did you, seems like NOT taking on the suggestions of those who have been editing longer than myself was the right decision, eh?. I recommend YOU start editing more collaboratively by not lecturing other editors who knows what they are doing. The Optimistic One (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure if you submitted it the same way, it would have been posted in the same place... And you do know that review submissions is how you're actually meant to create articles, right? Neutral parties are meant to be the ones who determine whether an article is valid or not, all the others are meant to do is discuss it. Your comment about the deletion requests is bordering on extremely uncivil, I recommend you check your tone. Clearly you have no idea what constitutes an article - have you read the splitting guidelines and policies? -- AlexTW 00:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Trust me Alex, i know what im doing. I've read the splitting guidelines and policies before, so you don't need to lecture me on it. I do know what constitutes an article, that is the reason why seasons 1, 2 and 3 of BCS got published in the first place, and it's also the reason why Kim Wexler and Chuck McGill's character articles still exist, even after both articles were brought to a discussion on whether they should be deleted or not. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
What's clear in looking at the group of articles is that one is a regurgitation of the one before, with new episode lists, cast list tweaks, and a handful of trivia added. Both the S2 and S3 articles lack anything that can't be found in the parent article. The S4 article is far too early, has no substance (aside from the regurgitated content), and has no business being published for some time to come. @AlexTheWhovian:, do you think S2 and S3 should be redirected to drafts until they have more work done on them, especially given the lack of substantive content and the shifty way they were published? It's either that, or we may need to consider whether they need to be referred for deletion discussions.
I agree with Alex that you need to see this as a collaborative enterprise. Right now, your ownership of these articles are very apparent. You say you know what you're doing, but you're clearly just repeating the same content from article-to-article, and can't even manage the simple task of indenting a discussion correctly. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Why redirect both S2 and S3 to draft, or even worse delete them when they were submitted for review before and passed. They weren't published in a shifty way either may i remind you. I also do not claim ownership to any of these articles. You also said that i can't even manage the simple task of indenting a discussion correctly. I find this very despicable of you to criticize me for not being able to indent a discussion correctly, you also threatened to block me for reverting another editors edit's even though i had stopped reverting. You're attitude towards me is downright unacceptable. The Optimistic One (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Alex and Drmargi do have a point with the Season 4 page. If it wasn't in draft status I would have suggested that someone attach a redirect to the page and revisit it in a few months time to establish notability. Esuka323 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I can see what point they are making with S4. But Drmargi suggesting that S2 & S3 be redirected or deleted is just wrong. Both articles were submitted for review and passed, for which Drmargi doesn't seem to understand. The Optimistic One (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh that I don't agree with, and if a discussion ever comes of it, you're welcome to ping me into it and I'll offer my support to retain them. You've done a good job with those pages and they meet notability. Esuka323 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
That is WP:CANVAS and highly frowned upon and you can be warned for disruptive behaviour. -- AlexTW 23:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
No, it really isn't. I've contributed to the pages and don't want to see them deleted. The article that you're quoting, specifically the first two lines support my request. I don't visit my edit history very often and I'll probably forget to visit these pages until closer to Season 4s airdate. Esuka323 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
You: you're welcome to ping me into it and I'll offer my support to retain them. WP:CANVAS: Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. -- AlexTW 00:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
You're accusing me of something you'd struggle to prove. My comment to him was nothing but praise for his work, making my position on the subject clear at the same time. If such a discussion ever took place, I wouldn't know about it because no one would tell me. The first two lines of that article are my position on the issue. That's all I have to say on this issue. Esuka323 (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Well then, this is all I will have to say. If any article was AFD'ed, it would appear on the article itself. If I see any canvassing to influence the manner of any discussion, the behaviour will be warned and reported as disruptive behavior. -- AlexTW 00:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm just saying that both S2 and S3 were submitted for review before and passed and Drmargi still thinks both are not good enough. The Optimistic One (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian:, what is your opinion on S2 & S3. Do you agree with Drmargi's statement that the articles should be redirected or deleted. The Optimistic One (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

2014 in Ireland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cal
The One Where the Monkey Gets Away (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Animal control
The One with the Dozen Lasagnas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Adam Chase

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The One with the Fake Monica, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Crane and Adam Chase (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gentle Mother

The article Gentle Mother has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:MUSIC fail. Not notable. Possible Hoax.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 17:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

removing redirects

Hi you have been recently removing a lot of redirects to episodes of television shows that are now popping up on new pages review. Please read WP:EPISODE and only remove the redirects if you have more sources to show that these individual episodes meet notability requirements. Thanks. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Using blogs as sources

In this edit [1] you added as a reference a blog that is...and I quote "Just a high school student who loves to watch TV. And criticize it like hell." Please read WP:RS and notably WP:UGC and avoid using these kind of references they do not help with notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:AC/DS

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

—SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 07:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steve Leo Beleck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cameroonian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2010 in Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dermot Earley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Pilot (Drake & Josh)

Hi. I see that you've removed the redirect for Pilot (Drake & Josh). I have, for the time, restored this redirect. It is possible that this episode does indeed meet notability requirements, however the article as it is currently written does not do so. I would encourage you to establish that notability, examples of which can be found here, if you choose to again rescue this article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

2012 in Ireland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to David Kelly
2013 in Ireland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sean Fallon

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Pilot (Drake & Josh)

I notice you recreated the article Pilot (Drake & Josh), again. I restored the redirect because the article didn't meet WP:N requirements. Specifically, several of the sources cited were [not] reliable, and those that were did not meet the requirements at WP:N (the guideline states that a topic is notable if it received significant coverage in reliable sources -- significant coverage means the coverage addressed the topic in detail -- it doesn't have to be the main topic of the source material but the mentioning must be more than trivial. Please address this if you recreate this article again. Thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC) (Edited to add word in brackets on 16:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC))

Just before i seen this message i reverted your edits, the article is now in good condition IMO. I also removed all the trivia that was in the article before-hand. What's wrong with the article now? The Optimistic One (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
As I stated above, I restored the redirect because the article and underlying subject didn't appear to meet WP:N. (Incidentally, I also added notability maintenance tag to the article yesterday, but you removed the tag without addressing the issue.) 青い(Aoi) (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Obviously you are free to manage your talk page largely as you see fit. However, I will note that you now have had two independent editors, Aoi and myself make fundamentally similar messages regarding what is necessary for the Pilot to be notable. Please, take effort to heed them. My (erased) message pointed towards episode pages that show how an episode can establish notability. The pilot episode of this show really might be notable, I'd believe that, but you haven't done any of the work to establish that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Optimistic_One/Archive_3&oldid=1259634442"