Misplaced Pages

User talk:Tyciol: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:20, 21 June 2007 view sourceWLU (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,243 edits Strength training← Previous edit Revision as of 16:34, 21 June 2007 view source WLU (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,243 edits Strength training: replyNext edit →
Line 42: Line 42:


I'm just looking over a bunch of your recent changes to strength training. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but there's a bunch of stuff that you've done that's counters many edits I deliberately made in the past, and a ''lot'' of original-research type stuff that really needs sources before being included in the page. I plan on having a look at the page once your done and re-working what I consider iffy, moving it to the talk page or just re-wording as I think is required. I'll leave detailed edit summaries as I make changes so you can see my reasoning. Please let me know what you think so we can up the page quality. ] 16:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC) I'm just looking over a bunch of your recent changes to strength training. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but there's a bunch of stuff that you've done that's counters many edits I deliberately made in the past, and a ''lot'' of original-research type stuff that really needs sources before being included in the page. I plan on having a look at the page once your done and re-working what I consider iffy, moving it to the talk page or just re-wording as I think is required. I'll leave detailed edit summaries as I make changes so you can see my reasoning. Please let me know what you think so we can up the page quality. ] 16:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:Please don't refactor my talk page.
:I haven't looked at the changes in depth yet, so I've yet to make any myself. My gut impression is that I'll be adding a fair amount of fact tags and some wording stuff. The places where you've elaborated on entries to lists, I'm almost certainly going to be taking out (or suggesting taking out) the elaboration - wikilinks exist so people can read up on the topic if they want to, having little definition half-sentences just clutters up the page for no good reason. Aside from that, I'll have to look at it before giving specifics. ]

Revision as of 16:34, 21 June 2007

Read BEFORE Posting:

  • Vandalism and other offensive commentary/trolling will be deleted expeditiously.
  • If you want me to respond/take your comments seriously, sign them with ~~~~.
  • Be sure to be signed in. Anonymous users will have their messages deleted without comment.
  • I will respond on your talk page, but I will not return to your talk page after that unless you've responded on my talk page. Sounds convoluted, but I'd rather be editing articles than reading your talk page.
  • Add your comments to the bottom of the page.
  • If you don't agree with a change that I've made to an article, please let me know nicely and I will address the issue.

March 2007

WP:POINT

I'm surprised stuff like this goes on without Wikipedians even knowing they are discussed... posting this here in case the person I asked about it wants to discuss, or people in general. Tyciol 21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus and Mo

I have removed the Wp links you inserted to the articles on both the mythical and historical persons who happen to share the same names as the characters in the strip. My understanding is that the author of the strip does not intend that the characters should be perceived as referring to the mythical and historical persons. This might explain why the Ganesh character made only a single appearance since any representation is perhaps too unique. Albatross2147 03:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on! You know that's exactly what he's doing. If not then why all the references to him walking on water and having stigmata? Anything he says about it being a joke or a stand-in is part of the comedy mocking the evasiveness of people who criticize or who do parodies. I really think they should be added back. Tyciol 15:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps what could be done is to add a sentence or two which state what you have said as a critical point about the way the strip is written (if you see what I mean). This would maintain the conceit that the characters are not really meant to be representations but allow links to the articles. This might not be totally satisfactory for those who hold your view but neither is it totally satisfactory to those who would adhere to my view - so it's probably about right. This is not a die in the ditch issue for me by the way but I think we should not totally ignore the author's decalred intent which is part of the humour. I am sure we can reach a satisfactory consensus on this. Albatross2147 11:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

April 2007

Matt Furey

I noticed this page was by User:Zscout370 on April 17th and again by you on April 20th (I'm guessing it was recreated by someone in that interim or something), and that there was no discussion beforehand as to why. I don't think there's evidence this was an attack page. Many positive qualities of Mr. Furey were espoused, with links to sites supporting his views even presented before ones critical of them. Furthermore, the criticisms on the page were not unsourced. It's pretty confusing, what initiated this? Furthermore, criticism serves not simply to badmouth, but to inform people of the content and healthiness of the methods. It is much like listing the dangerous of pharmaceutical drgs. Tyciol 17:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The article you're referring to has been deleted twice if you look at its deletion log. After it was deleted the first time around, it was recreated as an attack page with statements such as "it is fair to describe his business persona as a slimy used car salesman". As to the nature of the complaint leading to the article being deleted the first time around, you'll need to contact someone from OTRS since I don't have access to Misplaced Pages:OTRS. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've contacted the editor who deleted it the first time to attempt to resolve this. User_talk:Zscout370/Archive_8#Matt_Furey Tyciol 14:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nightmare on Elm Street

Hi - you've added this movie to Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films. There isn't any suggestion of CSA in the original 1984 movie, but I have not seen any of the sequels. If there is clear indication of CSA in any of them can you specify which movie please, Tony 09:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Tony

June 2007

LazyTown

A tag has been placed on Welcome to LazyTown, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribs) 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Strength training

Hi,

I'm just looking over a bunch of your recent changes to strength training. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but there's a bunch of stuff that you've done that's counters many edits I deliberately made in the past, and a lot of original-research type stuff that really needs sources before being included in the page. I plan on having a look at the page once your done and re-working what I consider iffy, moving it to the talk page or just re-wording as I think is required. I'll leave detailed edit summaries as I make changes so you can see my reasoning. Please let me know what you think so we can up the page quality. WLU 16:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't refactor my talk page.
I haven't looked at the changes in depth yet, so I've yet to make any myself. My gut impression is that I'll be adding a fair amount of fact tags and some wording stuff. The places where you've elaborated on entries to lists, I'm almost certainly going to be taking out (or suggesting taking out) the elaboration - wikilinks exist so people can read up on the topic if they want to, having little definition half-sentences just clutters up the page for no good reason. Aside from that, I'll have to look at it before giving specifics. WLU