User talk:Woodensuperman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

List of Disney theatrical animated features

Regarding revert of yours, please see User talk:TheRealFennShysa#List of Disney theatrical animated features, where I've argued against most of the changes you've restored. --Mepolypse (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case would suggest you take it to the article's talk page, as it is such a major overhaul of the page. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I should have done that from the start rather than going via user talk pages. Please comment there. The bulk of the changes in your revert are about date format changes, but while numerous those changes aren't very important, since both formats are in fact acceptable. The problem is that your revert restored a number of incorrect changes, as I've previously noted. --Mepolypse (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes - my main issue is with the date format. The only other thing I can spot that my edit changes, is replacing a previously moved reference for Tangled, and removing a future Studio Ghibli film, which actually may not even be released by Disney anyway. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've noted all of the changes in your edit at User talk:TheRealFennShysa#List of Disney theatrical animated features and at Talk:List of Disney theatrical animated features. The lists in both places contain the exact contents of your revert (which are more than the two you note above). --Mepolypse (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay - with all the date changes it's difficult to see. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. It was frustrating to see this being reverted back and forth as if they were just date format changes, when I tried to point out other legitimate concerns. I'm sorry if my general frustration about this were reflected in my tone towards you. --Mepolypse (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I added to your frustration, I was just going by the edit summary, which only mentions date changes, and didn't spot the others. Thanks for pointing them out! Think I've put everything back now, or at least addressed individually the points. If not then let me know. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we could work this out. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this revert of yours, please see this change for context. The user is trying to match the numbers in that superset list. That might be useful if these numbers actually mean anything. I would tend to say that they don't (unlike the animated feature film canon numbers). I guess the broader question is, why do we even have these number (other than for that canon)? --Mepolypse (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see where they come from now. I must admit, I didn't really look into it, I just assumed that the other editor was putting them in chronological context with the WDAS series. When the films are a subset of a larger set, then this does cause numbering problems. I'm inclined to agree that maybe these shouldn't have numbers, as a chronological list would suffice in these cases. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Franchise pages

The "sectioning" is not appropriate. First, you're unnecessarily extending the table of contents and the sections just because you want each film by itself. This is a franchise page. It's meant to do a very basic summary of all the films. If people need to see independence then they should go to those pages. The flow is much better as a single prose section, instead of multiple broken up sections. As for the links, they are unneeded. All the films are linked in the overview and in the navbox. They don't need repeated links so close. If you disagree then go to the talk page and seek consensus for something that is been around for a long time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that says "this is the way it should be". The current structure has been around for a long while. If you don't like it, then you should start a talk on the talk page to see if others agree. I'm going to work and will look forward to your topic discussion on the talk page. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you would respect the history of the page and don't change it to your preferred version until a consensus to do so.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I really think there's room to be a bit more openminded with regard to my changes. If you look at a lot of other film series / franchise pages, they are laid out in much the same way - Batman in film is a good expamle. My main problem with the two I altered, is that giving an overview of the plot of 7-8 movies with no break as the first section leaves the reader a little bewildered, and it is difficult to find one's place. The point of breaking it down gives a clearer path and structure for the reader to follow. I think the best course of action would be to accept my changes on these pages to test, and see whether other editors feel the same as you. Neither of us is right or wrong here, just we have different opinions. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Superman section titles

Damn, can we just settle on a title for this section? There's several articles that link to this section and I'm trying to fix them. It's really annoying.-5- (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the minute you finish that task, the film's title will be announced :)

Do you see my reasoning for not putting the brackets in though? Rob Sinden (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problem with your edit. I wish they would confirm the title already, same with the Spider-Man reboot.-5- (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia:Class Clown

Hello Robsinden. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Class Clown, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This isn't a template. Needs to go to MfD I think. . Thank you. GedUK  17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Godzilla (2012 film)

Please follow the WP:RM process for a requested move. The page has been through two AfDs. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a requested move, but redirecting a page which should never have been created in the first place as per WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a template or procedure for what you're proposing, then, other than opening another AfD. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page is good enough... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think then it might be a good topic on the admin board -- when is a delete not a delete? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:ATD#Redirection which states "Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly redirect to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect." --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for including the image when you copied over to the franchise article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Superman (film project). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. BilCat (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really. I was trying to initiate the discussion, the other user was the one who was reverting without contributing. Please see discussion here: Talk:Superman in film#Breakout article for the 2012 reboot? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no exemption fromn 3RR for "contributing" to a discussion - the only exemptions are for clear vandalism or reverts of banned/blocked users using sockpuppets. This is clearly not such a case. - BilCat (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of this. But I haven't made "more than 3" reverts. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your redirect and started a discussion on the talk page. We shall see outside opinions and decide from there. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:00 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what I see

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/9140/wikitable.gif

Thats a bit of a nuisance. I know that if you shrink the page it shrinks the other stuff because the infobox has a fixed width, I'm not sure why at your lower resolution it isn't just taking up 80% of the available white space though. I think that table really is best suited at the top but I don't want a huge gap there. Perhaps there is some markup to change the infobox width.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask at the help desk, they helped me with an infobox issue before. If you don't mind though and if you're able to at work, if you can send me a screen of what you're seeing so they understand, it'd be helpful.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine: supervegetauk2001@yahoo.com Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That;s what I see if I shrink my window down so it doesn't seem to be a resolution issue but the result of your reduced viewspace. I will submit to the helpdesk and see if there is any advice they can offer as I'd really like to keep that table at the top but obviously can't have that gap there..Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

just a heads up.

While WP:Film project is only a essay it might be wise not to say it is on a AFD per WP:ONLYESSAY. I know you are a good editor though so don't sweat it. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - wasn't aware of that! --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

response

Hello, Woodensuperman. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your eyes

Based upon recent discussions in several places, I have begun work on an essay that seeks to clarify just how and when discussuion of a film-before-its-filming would per policy merit inclusion in some manner, or per GNG even merit a seperate article. Please look over User:MichaelQSchmidt/Future Films and offer your insights. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with you - and like the fact that you highlight that these articles should be a rare exception. Maybe you could put something in there about seeking consensus prior to split? Not really related to your essay, but a couple of opinions I have is that I think "future film" is a better disambiguator than "film project", and I don't see why "future film" articles should be treated any differently than "film" articles --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Planet of the Apes

You didn't leave an edit summary to this edit so I am really at a loss. Is there a reason for this revert? Wasn't the film officially retitled? --Muhandes (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is at Rise of the Apes, so would expect the template to reflect this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh! It was moved this morning! Reverted! --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You got me worried, as after I saw the article was renamed I went and renamed it in many other articles so I thought maybe you had a source to the contrary. No harm done, cheers! --Muhandes (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

a related discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Future films#Proposed ammendment to section on Process#Notability Your comments toward my attempt at clarity are quite welcome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's live

See Wikipedia:Future Films Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply:"eve"

You think? Although I don't know it got on the article or most definitely how it got there a second time with something I already said before in the edit summary after I got rid of it. :} Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess. I really wasn't upset even though I used the phrase "stupid" on the edit summary. I mainly didn't like that it could look like a vandalism so I definitely felt like explaining it on the edit summary that it wasn't as it looked. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Restructured the Bergman template

Hi! I just made some new changes to Template:Bergman. For example I removed all entries without an article, and included other articles related to Bergman, such as works about him rather than by him. Would be glad to hear your view on this, if you oppose any of the changes or have ideas for how the template could be improved further. Smetanahue (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on the filmography. Hopefully some of the stubs can be expanded too! Lugnuts (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Films Award
		I, Lugnuts (talk), hereby award Robsinden the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. For the expansion and reworking of the Ingmar Bergman filmography. Awarded 10:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Brighton and Hove

Re your edit to West Blatchington Windmill, I'd be against the creation of a category for Windmills in Brighton and Hove. This mill was in East Sussex when it was built, and has been for the majority of its existence. Other mills that fall in this catchment area would have been in West Sussex. Such a category would be on the small size, and the existing category structure is adequate for the job. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - was a bit stumped with that one. It was part of a larger change for listed buildings and other buildings that were listed as being in East Sussex, but are in fact in Brighton and Hove, but I appreciate that there are not enough windmills in Brighton and Hove to make a category. In order to be factually correct, as Brighton falls within the historic county of Sussex, how about a "Windmills in Sussex" category with sub categories of East Sussex and West Sussex and Blatchington Windmill in there separately? It's no big deal really, it wasn't my main concern when making the changes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We already have Category:Windmills in East Sussex and Category:Windmills in West Sussex. I'm not sure that adding in another category between those and Category:Windmills in England serves any real purpose. Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that Hove is in Brighton and Hove, and not East Sussex, no. But I'm not going to be too pedantic on this one as it's not a big deal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Brighton falls under the historical county of East Sussex. Hassocks5489 (talk · contribs) is the resident expert on these matters. Mjroots (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, although Brighton used to be in East Sussex, it falls in the historic county of Sussex. East Sussex is not a historic county. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just checked - if the mill was built in 1820, then it was built in the county of Sussex. Although divided, the county had not yet officially been split into two counties. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

AND, I make it that there are three windmills in Brighton and Hove. I reckon we should have a category for that... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've given Hassocks5489 a shout. Let's see what he says. I still think three is too low a number to justify a separate category. There are several demolished windmills which could have articles written about them which would fit in this category, but they are not high on my current "to do" list. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it's not really the windmills I was concerned about - there were some glaring inconsistencies within the different grades of listed buildings and I was trying to sort out what I could. When I came across something else that said "East Sussex" in Brighton and Hove, I tried to change that too. Still some work to do, but hopefully the integrity of the hierarchy structure of the categories and sub-categories is maintained (and, I hope, improved). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

←Having thought about this for quite a while, I'm still undecided. A category for "Windmills in Sussex" would not be appropriate, which leaves the possibility of creating a "Windmills in Brighton and Hove" category—which has some merit. Although the windmills were classified as being in Sussex/East Sussex until recently, a B&H category would be consistent with categories such as Churches, Listed Buildings etc. in Brighton and Hove. Admittedly, it would be a small category; perhaps the only other possible entry would be List of former windmills in Brighton and Hove! Anyway, I would not oppose the creation of a new Brighton and Hove category, although I appreciate it's not ideal. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this further, I suppose we should be consistent with List of windmills in the United Kingdom and thus List of windmills in East Sussex, which specifically mention "ceremonial counties". However, nothing to stop us creating a Category:Windmills in Brighton and Hove and including it as a subcategory of Category:Windmills in East Sussex, which would then allow them to be included in any Brighton and Hove categories. What do you guys think? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards against a List of windmills in Brighton and Hove. The category could be created as a sub-cat of the East Sussex one, if that would fit in with other B&H categories better, although as noted above would only contain three entries. Mjroots (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we re-write those lists, merely that the category should reflect the lists to some extent. But do I take it we're all in favour of creating a Category:Windmills in Brighton and Hove and including it as a subcategory of Category:Windmills in East Sussex? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a reasonable outcome; thanks to both for making these changes. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleo

If you are right, then I am completely satisfied with the deletion of this page, but where is the justification that this project has stalled?--Coin945 (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Monsters University

I still support a redirect, as the article itself is still not comprehensive enough and lacks showing the persistant coverage to merit being one of those rare but allowable exceptions to WP:NFF. And the SPA IP that had been attempting to resurect the article, despite an assumed good faith in his efforts, has not done much to show it having the continued and persistant coverage. Nearly all the sources used to create the original article were basd upon the March coverage, and lacked the expansion possible by inclusion of more recent coverage.[1][2] AND, as availbale sources state that the film has been put off for another 2 years,[3][4][5][6] a redirect still serves and this letter information can stil be used to expand the section in Monsters, Inc.#Prequel until such time as we have enough sourced content where a reasonable case can be made for a decent seperate article. Any interested editor is welcome to work on and expand a version of a new article in a userspace, but it simply is not ready for a mainspace stand-alone. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

See: my comment on the talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

But the film already has an official synopsis and logo..............and as a wikipedia, we should have that because after all the whole idea of wikipedia is to have records of information. It's silly putting it in the prequel section of Monsters, Inc.. Which by the way, you aren't adding anything new to that section anyways......... (Endrizzi427 (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC))

A synopsis and a logo do not a film make! But guidelines are there for a reason - maybe have another look at WP:NFF and then discuss at the talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

BAFTA Awards

If you look at the BAFTA website you will see that what www.imdb.com calls 1998 awards, BAFTA calls 1997 awards. You will see that this extends every year. The winners are shown on the BAFTA site in bold. Compare BAFTA 2010 with IMDB 2011. The reason for the confusion is that BAFTA gives awards for the Best Drama Series in 2010 in April 2011. My understanding is that Wikipedia does not consider IMDB a reliable source. Clearly this issue is much larger than just the article on Jonathan Creek, since all the pages referring to BAFTA awards are based on IMDB's understanding of the year of the awards.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is sound - maybe all the BAFTA pages should be moved back a year to match the BAFTA website - do you want to request moves for these? Some undertaking though! I guess I was lazily going for internal consistency! --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Although, I'm confused, as the 2011 awards seem to be correct. By your reasoning above, these would be the 2010 awards. Maybe this needs closer scrutiny. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay - seems to be some inconsistency on the BAFTA website. However, I think the IMDB have it right. When you search the BAFTA website, it shows the nominations from the previous year - ie 1997 nominations = 1998 awards. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln (2012 film)

I feel a redirect at this time as far better than an outright deletion, as it saves the history until such time as the topic might become notable enough for a seperate article. I do think that a merge places too much extraneous information in the Speilberg bio. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Rocksmith

What's your issue with my edits? I removed the myspace link as per bot request. I suggest I have far more right to edit this page than you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by St George888 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to want to hijack the page for a video game by adding in the opening paragraph information regarding a non-notable myspace/pub band. I'd suggest you stop doing this before you get blocked. I can only assume that you are involved in this band in some way due to your comment on my talk page that you "have far more right to edit this page than you". If you do feel that your band is notable, I'd suggest first reading the guideline at WP:BAND. If you are satisfied that your band meet this criteria, then why not start it at Rocksmith (band) as the video game is clearly the primary topic. However, be prepared to see the article be deleted, as I am sure that it doesn't meet the criteria. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"You seem to want to hijack the page.....regarding a non-notable myspace/pub band..... However, be prepared to see the article be deleted, as I am sure that it doesn't meet the criteria."

This is no more than subjective opinion and a biased attempt at fortelling! The page is little more than a free advert for the product, as are so many Wiki entries, I am merely offering a verifiable and legal alternative. What is your axe? (~~St George888~~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by St George888 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not you think it is little more than a "free advert" is irrelevant here. Generally, video games are seen as notable, bands which fail WP:BAND are not. If you think this video game is not notable, WP:AFD it. However, you should not be trying to change the focus of the page from the video game by adding a paragraph at the top about said band. The page at Rocksmith is about the video game. I have made a suggestion at your talk page about creating a new page rather than try to hijack this one, but as the band fails WP:BAND it will most likely be speedily deleted under this criteria. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"but as the band fails WP:BAND it will most likely be speedily deleted" And you KNOW that the band will fail, great research? And I wonder just who will do the deleting? I am NOT trying to change the focus, as stated previously just offering an alternative. And your biased interest is? (~~St George888~~)

Have you read WP:BAND? Can you demonstrate that the band meets any of the criteria therein? And, with respect, changing the lead paragraph from being about a video game to being about a non-notable band is changing the focus of the page. I am not biased in any way, and have completely no involvement in the game or the band. My only interest is to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Tell me, do you have any vested interest in this band? I assume that as your only edits seem to be to this page that this may well be the case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes and yes strangely, despite your inferred psychic abilities. Standard dictionaries, thesaurus and encyclopaedias offer alternatives as a matter of course. What a pity that your version of Wikipedia doesn’t. I don’t know what a Myspace band is however I suspect it could be like the FAILED band by the same name from your town seen here: www.wn.com/studiodynamic whose out of tune singer bears an uncanny resemblance to you! What were you saying about integrity? Never mind I’m now going an alternative route…Thanks for the tips.(~~St George888~~) --St George888 (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly new to Wikipedia, so would suggest you have a look at WP:Five pillars to familiarise yourself with with the policies and guidelines. It is not my version of Wikipedia, but the consensus of the community. Now, if there was a band called "Rocksmith" that met Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then it would be appropriate to have a page for them, and disambiguate between the two. However, your account seems to be a single purpose account, solely for the promotion of your band, and you have been making inappropriate edits in another page for self-promotion. This is what I have reverted, and sorry if you feel this is unfair, but theh guidelines have been reached through consensus by the community. Not sure what the link above is about (or your intended personal attack), but I can assure you that I am completely impartial here - something which, by your own admission you are not, despite your bizarre constant accusations that I somehow have a conflict of interest, something you are guilty of yourself. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont think concensus of 1 qualifies, but I care little for your opinion I thought this community was about values and verifiability. There was NO personal attack just a "verifiable" discovery. And my "bizrre allegations" are ably demonstrated in your prejudgement of WP criteria and other derogatory comments. More importantly, what "other page" edits?--St George888 (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines are not created by a consensus of one, but through discussion in the community. As an active user of Wikipedia, I try to follow the guidelines, and if I see that people make inappropriate edits, or vandalise pages in contravention of these guidelines, I revert them. This is exactly what I saw when I went to the Rocksmith page to read about the up and coming video game - An inappropriate edit (that incidentally had already been removed by a bot). Therefore, I removed it. You seem to think that I am trying to manipulate Wikipedia into my own personal vision, but you are the one who is trying to promote their band on here, not me!

As for your attempt at a personal attack: "it could be like the FAILED band by the same name from your town seen here: www.wn.com/studiodynamic whose out of tune singer bears an uncanny resemblance to you!". I'm not sure I can even begin to see how this can be a "verifiable discovery", when I clearly am not involved in whatever band that might be.

However, I think that in the spirit of Wikipedia, maybe these exchanges are not really going down the right route. Olive branch? If you are serious about joining in the community, seeing as you're new, if I can be of any assistance in helping you navigate the various policies and guidelines, then please leave me a message here on my talk page. Happy editing! --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

RIGHT! I get it now - have just seen your recent edits and now understand what you wanted to convey regarding the legal battle over the name. As that wasn't really appropriate to be the opening sentence, I have moved it to its own section entitled "Name controversy". I also reworded it slightly as nowhere on the source does it suggest that the game will be delayed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, what "another page for self promotion"? Also in the spirit of your "olive branch" please explain in terms of the many and various WP criteria "advert" "self-promotion" "conflict of interest" "copyright" "trademark" etc etc etc. Just how come Ubisoft get a free one page advert for a video game that isn't even released yet and furthermore is in legal conflict (copyright/trademark) over its use of the name Rocksmith. Are you (WP) even aware that Ubisoft are in another legal copyright battle over another game that never came to market? Also if Ubisoft are allowed a voice but I am not how does this sit with the WP policy of neutrality?--St George888 (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguous use of the word "another" - sorry. I mean in a page that is not about the subject. Video games that meet certain criteria are seen as notable, as are bands, films, tv shows, etc. This is not a free advert (see WP:ADVERT), but information on a product that readers may wish to read about. However, not everything meets criteria.

With regard to the legal battle, I understand what you were trying to do now. See my comments above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"and you have been making inappropriate edits in another page for self-promotion" seems fairly unambiguous to me! You still have not addressed the points raised about Ubisofts impunity for a game that does not exist yet! So I can start self-promoting the forthcoming Rocksmith album that doesn't exist yet but might be of interest to some of WP readers when and if it comes out? Bearing in mind that we have over 50,000 followers on the www which is just under half of Ubisofts proposed game, not bad for a "non notable". Why are Rocksmith(us) denied an external link? --St George888 (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't mean "another" as in more than one, but as a page that wasn't the page on the subject.

You clearly have an axe to grind with Ubisoft. I'd strongly advise you read WP:COI before editing on this subject again. However, in answer to your question, all pages must meet general notability guidelines and there are specific guidelines for video games and albums. The Rocksmith video game most likely satisfies the criteria for a video game (If you think it doesn't, don't complain to me, but consider nomintating it for delition). However, Rocksmith the album would most likely fail the notability guidelines for an album in the same way that "Rocksmith" the band would most likely fail the notability guidelines for a band. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And the Rocksmith(us) external link denied? And so because of WP COI which strangely doesnt apply to the author??? I cant put a representative edit to balance the page and maintain "neutrality". So all this balls about neutral and copyright is just lip service. It wouldn't be a chap thats called Mugabe that runs this would it. I'm done...--St George888 (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely(?) warning! And after the edit from AA I'm beginning to realise why WP is viewed with such disdain by people in the real world. Echoes of "1984" are much too strong for me I'm afraid I'll leave you guys to it...--St George888 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines

You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel its going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been pluggin' away...

Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers (or WP:NewbieGuide) went "live" a few minutes ago. I hope you will consider sharing it with those newcomers whose paths you cross. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ingmar Bergman filmography

Hi. Following on your edit comment on Ingmar Bergman filmography, I suggested on the Talk page a title/article change. ENeville (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nithya (film)

I would like you to read my comment at the AFD and consider supporting a redirect. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Films based on Astrid Lindgren stories

Category:Films based on Astrid Lindgren stories, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Grinning Man

Why did you move the article The Grinning Man (Jonathan Creek) to The Grinning Man when there was a separate article regarding the cryptid? Now, the cryptid article's history has merged with the episode's history and there's no way to revert your "revision". Any ideas on how we can fix this? Geeky Randy (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that was a while back, but I can only suppose that there wasn't anything at The Grinning Man, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to move it. My rationale was "no need for disambiguation", so that would support this theory. Further investigation shows that the page you were looking for was subject to an AfD, and the result was delete. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah-ha, so it was deleted. Okay. Thanks for pulling that up. Geeky Randy (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Woodensuperman. You have new messages at Talk:CD86 (album).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Disney Vault

You need to read the source correctly if you note at the top it clearly states "The following is a complete list of all Disney DVD movies 'in the vault' on moratorium." So I have readded Aladdin yet again. Please do not change this as it is correct and has a source. Thank you. User talk:RickyBryant45324 19:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add if you'd look at Aladdin's home media section the source is reliable as it's used there. User talk:RickyBryant45324 20:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion on the article talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek 2

You have been reverted. As before with our previous encounters, there are enough sources for it to gain seperate article status. It's saddening that, rather than help Wikipedia expand, you reduce it. The film is a confirmed project with a set filming date and release date. There are almost 30 sources on it. It doesn't warrant redirection. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:39 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you read WP:NFF. Creation of this article directly contravenes this policy guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That policy is held against films announced. This project has been confirmed. There is a set filming date and a release date. There is a bounty of sources heralding notability. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:43 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If you believe Star Trek 2 doesn't meet qualifications, check out Big Eyes. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 0:13 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're using this as an argument! Of course Big Eyes should be deleted!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Big Eyes is on the deletion slab. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 3:49 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd have gone for a WP:PROD rather than Afd it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well sorry to interrupt but is there an option that both of you can come to term with on Star Trek 2?--Bumblezellio (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a jab, Rob, but i felt that you only nom'd this for deletion because you didn't get your way with the redirect. We could of devised an alternative at the talk page. Userfying, IMO, is out of the question. Not putting up with that again. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:14 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to cause me grief? It seems no matter what film article i make, you protest it? Wy can't you help make it notable rather than petition for deletion or redirection? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 17:39 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course I'm not trying to cause you grief! Please assume good faith! What I'm trying to do is improve Wikipedia by removing speculative articles that go against guidelines and that I believe should not have been created in the first place. How can I "make" something notable that, to my mind, and according to WP:NFF, isn't notable. The only people who can make it notable are the film-makers when they start actually making the film. What I'd suggest in the future is to include the information in a relevant place (in this case maybe Star Trek (film)#Sequel would have been appropriate), and then when there is too much information to house there, seek consensus as to whether a breakout article is warranted. This is what is recommended at WP:NFF and WP:FILMPROJECT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek 2 (2013 film)

I can understand RAP's angst about userfication, and while in no way advocating WP:OWN, I know the feeling one can get after sitting on a userfied article for a while, only to have it recreated by others at a time when the topic is "ripe". I think if we have this out of mainspace and nowiki'd in the incubator, we have a better solution: More eyes, collaborative editing, preserved history of editor contributions, and a far greater liklihood of the incubated article being the one returned to mainspace when "ripe" as opposed to recreation by another. What say? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Another option would be to develop on the Star Trek (film series) page, and then break out once consensus is such that a stand-alone article is warranted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Just an fyi, you might want to read up on the difference between Policies and guidelines, you seem to have them confused--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummm - what is WP:GNG if not a guideline? WP:CRYSTAL however, is a policy! --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Broken City

Seriously? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:11 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Woodensuperman. You have new messages at Rusted AutoParts's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Theodor Hassek, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Austrian (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 11:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burt Wonderstone

When you state "there doesn't seem to be anywhere else sensible to house the article", I wish to remind you that per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Incubation we DO have a sensible place in which to house articles whose time has not yet quite arrived. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Quentin Tarantino filmography, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Iron Monkey (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) 13:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Untitled Star Trek sequel No Consensus!

Hello there, the article Untitled Star Trek Sequel was undeniably unaccepted by other Wikipedians that read the article. However, the article was left without a consensus. Would you like to resume the discussion?--Bumblezellio (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited BFI Flipside, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Davis (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) 10:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)