User talk:MSJapan/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] About Template:Atomic Betty and Template:Out Of Jimmy's Head

The point about creating this template was not about making stubs, it was only for people to know better Atomic Betty, and her compadres. And the point about creating this template was not about making stubs, it was about improving an article of a Cartoon Network show to the level of all of the others. Please don't erase them.

Best wishes, User:Diogo Ribeiro. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Content

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 3 Doors Down. The recent news section of the page is a valid part of the article. Your edit was reverted. Thank you. --Candy156sweet 04:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why is it that articles such as George Bush, Hilary Clinton, et al have recent news attached to their articles. Would you dispose of those facts from their articles? Those are not trivial facts about the band. They happen to be major articles on the band. I think that you should post to the discussion board as to what you're doing, and don't just blank a page. You're not the decision maker of what stays, what's important, and what goes. Just a suggestion. Have a good one... --Candy156sweet 04:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the articles listed as sources were not from tabloids, they are from major newspaper publications and they are factual. None of the facts listed were defamatory or hurtful in anyway. There is no reason to delete them. --Candy156sweet 04:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

They are within the policy. --Candy156sweet 04:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To be completely honest, and you should really look at the history of this article. I did not create the recent news section. I merely added content that referred to the subject of the article. Please do not add facts to third party consultants that are wholly untrue. I hope that you'll add that to your message concerning the dispute over the article's content. Thanks in advance and enjoy the weekend. --Candy156sweet 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Puffy AmiYumi

A co-worker of mine apparently linked my Puffy blog to the Puffy AmiYumi article a little while back. I now see you undid that edit, citing the EL. However, the EL does list under "What that should be linked", "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." My blog has both reviews and other "meaningful, relevant content" about Puffy AmiYumi.

I realize the EL contradicts itself on that point later, but how do you reconcile one type of fan site being included in the external links and not another? (puffyamiyumiworld.com is still up there, simply because it's not in a blog format?)--Badasscat 18:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] However

Not confused. Once upon a time in the dark ages the rule was that "however" should only be used in the form: independent clause/semicolon/however/independent clause. I see by a google check that this rule is no longer applied by most. -Jmh123 00:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead links and appropriate links

The Tofu Records link I deleted from the Puffy AmiYumi article has not been active for several months because the company no longer exists. It’s no longer an official external link.

The website “Puffy AmiYumi World” contains several times the content of the wiki article and falls within the criteria of “sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail” and sites that provide “other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shizen (talk • contribs) 04:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For the second time -- please stop deliberately reposting dead links on the Puffy AmiYumi article. As already explained to you once the company “Tofu Records” no longer supports the link and hasn’t for several months. It is NOT the policy of Wikipedia to continue to post links that are dead and will remain so.

Also, the term “fansite” is irrelevant. The relevance of external links is judged based on their content and “Puffy AmiYumi World” adds significant information on the article’s subject matter that is too extensive to post in it.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shizen (talk • contribs) 18:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll remove them both; WP policy is very clear on what an external link is and what it may not be. MSJapan 00:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your agreement on the Tofu Records dead link.

If you have content-based criteria for not including the Puffy AmiYumi World link please discuss it with a more detailed explanation. Please discontinue removing a nearly five month old link with comments like “fansite.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shizen (talk • contribs) 13:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few days to consider your points

Thank you for your response and your dedication to Wikipedia. I will comment more fully in a few days. I have many examples of similar links on other musical groups, actors and celebrity articles but I have some concern that your response might be to delete all those links as well. Since that would result (in my opinion) in an unfortunate reduction in the information available to Wikipedia users, I’ll consider this point carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shizen (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's new?

I remember you contacted me about my userpage. Well, I took your advice and after occasionally editing here and there, I seem to be caught in WP's grip. My best article is Life is a Test. VoL†ro/\/Force 04:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And again

MSJapan,

Thanks for the time you’ve spent in your response. I respectfully disagree on several points.

First and foremost an external link should contain meaningful, relevant content that adds significant information to an article. Here is some of the content that the site in question contains:

Over 150 separate pages for every song by these artists. Content includes lyrics (including original English translations), song credits, a short song sample, info on the song’s releases, quotes by the singers, songwriters and producers and links to their biographies, info on other media the song was featured in and info on accompanying music videos.

Other content includes a discussion forum about the artists, trivia games about the artists, biographies of their songwriters and producers (most of whom don’t have a Wiki entry), detailed info on the books about the artists, detailed info on each DVD released by the artists, links to thirteen interviews with the artists, 2 original interviews with the artists’ songwriters, detailed info on the movies the artists have been in, detailed info on the TV shows the artists have appeared on and a large number of links to other websites related to the artists.

This is an enormous amount of meaningful, relevant content beyond what the article can contain that is worthy of a link, not a dismissal as “a site of very little value.”

Secondly, there are no advertisements on the site, unless you are refering to links where readers can buy the artists’ merchandise – which can be found on most musical artists official sites so is obviously not a valid criteria to exclude this type of link. --Shizen 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have nominated you for admin

MSJ, I have put your name up for consideration as an admin. Please go to the page and indicate your acceptance. Blueboar 18:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Masonic conspiracy theories. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. SarekOfVulcan 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question...

I've posed the same question to Siva1979, but I'm having trouble differentiating whether your concern is over a POV editing position or a concentration on a topic, and I can't reply if I'm unsure of the issue. I've asked Siva to elaborate through a question, but you might want to do the same, as I'd like to respond to the right problem. I will say, though, that I have never been accused of POV editing by anyone save Lightbringer, and I don't think an area of specialty prevents me from working outside of that area. Out of the 6000+ edits I have, Freemasonry is maybe a twelfth, which includes vandalism reversion. MSJapan 02:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi MSJapan. I've just added an optional question. I support the way you dealt w/ Lightbringer's situation. I am neutral toward issues mentioned by other users. However, i'll base my decision on your response to my question. Regards. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

I have responded on your RFA Page! Pat^{Politics rule!} 05:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. In retrospect, my comment was a very obtuse and harsh way to make my point. I've fleshed out my response there. Cheers! east.718 at 10:11, 10/27/2007

[edit] Speedy deletion

As per the guideline on deleting your user talk page, I have declined to speedily delete this page. If you have a specific reason you can re-add the tag {{db-userreq|rationale=Reason}}. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

As you have withdrawn your RFA candidacy, I consider the request you have made on my talk page to be moot and will not be answering it. However, if you still require an answer, just let me know. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)