| Revision as of 02:20, 21 November 2008 editThingg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users71,378 edits →Ridge Landing Airpark: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:26, 21 November 2008 edit undoG.-M. Cupertino (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users29,436 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| == |
== It's corrected! == | ||
| ⚫ | The IMDb name things, they're all right now, I've corrected them yesterday!... ] (]) 13:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Not only I've finally discovered for over a month that that per MOS thing was a reference to the mandatory ] - it would be better if you explained things, people aren't obliged to know every abbreviation, I thought all those corrections were made just for a personal idea of style, as so many other editors insist in removing or readding things more than once without any rule as justification - but I've also corrected some of my previous mistakes, in good time!... If you've read my rant as you should and then you would've reached to that conclusion: that I was just justifying why I've never followed the rules before!... But apparently you have no time for reading, or correcting anything, the same reason why I had to correct some articles personally instead of just waiting for someone else to do it, some of the dits been done today!... PS: If films are "not notable" - as if!... - why do they have pages - not having a page doesn't make it "non notable" per se?... Or you prefer to have everything unlinked?... Actually I read the articles better with more links, and beside SOME common English words I've linked were mostly to illustrate the speech or some character appearance without a page. ] (]) 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Because I was so sick and tired of seeing edits made by subjective reasons that I just assumed it was the case. Specially when I didn't know of all those rules: since no page had a complete or even an incomplete Filmography I assumed there weren't even rules for something so small in a whole Encyclopedia. And the only time I've seen someone say anything about the Manual of Style that was inteligeable that someone said or I've read on the top of it that it was "guiding lines", which I interpret as being mere abstract preferences, like, it is preferable to put filmographies from the oldest works to the newest ones. The rest, I have no time to talk or read editors' things, I have so many other things to do... You should've said that Dates are mandatorially deprecated by some recent decision and according to the mandatory Manual of Style, instead of that gibberish "date audit script assisted per MOS" (I've only open the link of the script and I assumed it was just a description of the alteration and the program that assisted it and I never read what the MOS was), I would've ran to the Administrators in the first place to know what was going on instead of debating the issue with just another editor!... When someone started taking dates out not only I didn't knew it was some new management's idiossincratic mandatory change, but I saw that it was a stupid one, since most people otherwise wouldn't even know that there are pages for years and for years in music and film and television, which by the way is the only reason I know they exist, because I've read them in some page. If you deprecate them all - and according to the Holy Manual of Style they're not even to be deprecated as I see so many doing - no one will even know they're there. My rant was the one that was here long enough to be read!... I was referring to your comment that I did links to so called non notable films. The rest, on Saturday I've corrected most of the Filmographies, and there are just about 30 left, which I expect to finish soon. ] (]) 12:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == IMDb == | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
Revision as of 13:26, 21 November 2008
 Archives |
|
/archive1,
/archive2,
/archive3, |
Welcome!
When posting to my talk page, I have a couple of requests that I would like you to keep in mind:
- When starting a new discussion, please put it in its own section. The easiest way to do this is the click on the "+" tab at the top of the page and then give the discussion a title.
- Please be specific. Comments like "Why did you make that edit?" will get us both nowhere. Which edit? To what article?
- I don't expect you to watch my talk page. I'll leave my response on your talk page unless you tell me otherwise.
- And finally, please sign your comments. You can do this by putting four tildes at the end of your comments like this: ~~~~
Thanks, Dismas|
It's corrected!
The IMDb name things, they're all right now, I've corrected them yesterday!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Articles for deletion/Stingray Sam
The Misplaced Pages article for the upcoming Cory McAbee's film Stingray Sam is nominated for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion.--DrWho42 (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Ridge Landing Airpark
Just wanted to let you know that Ridge Landing Airpark doesn't qualify for G4 because it's content is not at all similar to the version that was deleted . imho, it is marginally notable, but if you think otherwise, feel free to list it for deletion again. Regards. Thingg 02:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)