User talk:TTN/Archive 11

5951:

any event, though, the chapters by one author versus episodes are not parallel scenarios for the many reasons explained above: 1) episodes are reviewed in magazines and newspapers on an episode basis; books are reviewed as total works, not by chapters; 2) episodes can win awards for episodes; books only win awards for the whole book, not individual chapters; 3) episodes may have different writers, directors, and actors and be edited differently in different countries; 4) chapters can be edited differently in different countries, but usually the author, characters, etc. in a book don't change from chapter to chapter as they are the product of a writer and maybe an editor, not as in the case of a TV episode, maybe multiple writers, a director, filmer, actors, actresses, editor, producer, etc.; 5) episodes have wildly diverse ratings and viewership; granted some may read the first chapter of a book and call it quits, but a book does not get Nielson ratings for individual chapters. The main interpretation of our discussion today and the whole fact of the arbitration case is that there clearly is not a consensus among our community as to the notability of episodes and characters and in AfDs when we have no consensus we default to keep. Best, --

7168:, except a bit more detailed. I don't know of Chloe and Lionel would be able to fit on the page, removing their separate articles, that would depend on what secondary source information I could find on them. Their pages need major cleaning, but I'm focused on the season articles at the moment. I plan to clean them up though. It may turn out that when they are cleaned up that they can be merged, but somehow I think the characters have growns so much, with regard to the series as a whole, that there might be plenty to talk about them on their own articles. I don't want to give up the Cast list on the main page though, because I think it helps compliment the rest of the article well. The individual character sections could probably be trimmed if we had a "List of" page, that's for sure, but I don't want to lose it entirely. 761:

about, quoting various Knowledge policies and guidelines." Why shouldn't every Knowledge editor back his or her edits with Knowledge policies and guidelines? This demonstrates to me that your problem doesn't lie with TTN, but with Knowledge itself. I would request that the anonymous editor either seek to change the system by addressing Knowledge's core values, or direct his attention to a project that is compatible with his values. Many, including myself, would argue that the redirection of an article about a non-notable subject is, in fact, a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia, and a cornerstone of creating a "good, quality online encyclopedia."

5877:

space to do so. If it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then we must be open to everyone and not narrow. I used Spawn because there's no way I could see his article getting deleted and I did not want to use a different example that someone (I'm not saying you by any means) would then seize upon as next on their chopping block as has happened to me in the past when I mentioned articles as examples. Anyway, as for not having valid sources, again, that comes down to a "so fix it," i.e. search for and add the sources. I have found improving articles incredibly rewarding. Deletion discussions have been perhaps the least enjoyable aspect of

7327:. I was admittedly surprised at all the fighting necessary to do things such as re-name it to its actual name, create character lists, and of course, the biggest controversy for wiki policies; creating individual episode pages as opposed to an all encompassing capsule page. All my beliefs of this being totally uncalled for aside, I understand that you are doing it to "clean up" all the unvalidated and poorly written material there is on Knowledge, and that episode articles are ripe for the picking, so to speak. The only thing I really wanted to ask you about was this: If episode articles are so unnecessary, why do shows such as 7676:

would be understandable. Your efforts to clean up the reams and reams of dross and detritus that have accumulated here are well-appreciated, fully in keeping with the spirit of an encyclopedia, almost always supported by our policies and guidelines and entirely commendable. It is a sad day that a committed and vocal group has been able to thwart through obstruction what they have been unable to achieve through changes to our policies and guidelines. In the end, our policies have remained largely unchanged and efforts to clean up the mess of fan-driven fiction content should continue. I hope you will remain part of that effort.

5781:

that wind up being saved after myself or others relatively easily find reputable third party sources. More effort should just be put in providing these sources and as Knowledge does not have a dealine, there's no need to delete articles when unreference tags can serve as cautions to readers to take the article's contents with a grain of salt or to indicate that it is a work in progress that any reader can help improve. A good deal of characters are indeed notable in their own right; after all some characters appear in cross-overs for example that are not part of the same series. Spawn appears in

7349:

figure it out himself, and is nearly reprimanded for trying to question the emperor of Austria. That's the best way I can think of comparing what editors like you are doing to the community at large; letting us know we're the ones at fault, but not offering any of your expertise to actually improve the article. By all means, please explain in which ways I'm mis-characterizing you or anything, but I'm just asking if you could take a more active role as a dutiful wikipedian and let the rest of us know what's going through your mind when you edit. :)

5808:

one. Aside from the different writers and directors (which even if they do have guests, are still just part of the overall staff), there is really nothing different. Most of them do not have valid sources, and they have existed for quite a while, so they don't need much more time to develop. While I'm sure there are cases that can be improved, they are not the majority. The fact that we don't have a deadline applies both ways. We can wait until the main topic is developed in order to have an article on the sub-topic.

31: 2841: 177:, my view is that the current guidelines are too vague, are not prescriptive enough and need to have teeth to ensure that they are adhered to. At the moment, there are too many arguements about what/what isn't notable, and the guidelines are not being enforeced by closing admins in AfD's who too often follow the majority view. The guidelines need to be firmed up and I hope you will assist with this process by continuing to contribute to the discussion. -- 1640: 1338: 1321: 1011: 1419: 2836: 5186:, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction. 2768: 2681: 1864:

the IP opinion because it 1) expressed a weak argument without adequate reference to policy and 2) it was a single purpose account (SPA) with the !vote/opinion being its only edit. The improvement to the article was substantial as compared to the beginning of the AfD process. When I closed the AfD, the article content and sources made it in no way a legitimate candidate for AfD. So I'm reversing myself again. Cheers,

495:

to no traffic on the articles (there is only one with over fifty edits that I can find). It won't do a thing either way (a regular case would have had merge tags). If you can find a good amount of interested parties, we can waste some time on it. For sources to be added to the articles, a "expert", for the lack of a better word, will have to work on the episode, so they will be capable of bringing it back.

2822: 2807: 529:"Just ignore the tag"? And what if I choose to ignore (your apparent interpretation of) WP:EPISODE instead? Ah well, in any case: if the articles do no harm, why remove them? Just as it's perfectly OK to have, say, one-line stub articles for all the disused Scottish railway stations there ever were -- unsourced, even -- I don't see what harm these articles are doing anyone. WP:IDONTLIKEIT? -- 6888: 5895:

Chapters without any real world context are just plot reiterations with a few basic details that belong elsewhere, and the same applies to characters and episodes. When it's impossible to improve them with real world content, "fix it" isn't really a valid argument. That is the case for at least 80% of the articles on fictional topics and episode articles (not the works themselves).

7048:

extra breathing room. Also, I've found that the recurring characters actually get some discussion in the companion books, whereas the one-time guest stars are usually regulated to "he/she was good in that role". All the other one-time stars can just live by their brief mentioning in the plot sections of the season articles. What are your thoughts about this approach?

5700:

episodes appear in extended versions on DVD or are censored in different countries) and characters that appear in multiple mediums rarely have a good redirect place, not to mention that just about anything that is significant enough to say appear in a video game, movie, and/or comic book, novelization or some kind of scenario as implied is obviously notable. Best, --

5642:

when we have the editors and disk space to do so with only more people being born every day and more computer users around the world willing to edit every day. One of my major contributions is to welcome new users as a member of the Welcoming Committee and Kindness Campaign and it is stunning how many new accounts are created practically every few seconds. Best, --

7237:. Take a look to get an idea of what it will be like. It's 80kb right now, but I don't know if that will get larger or smaller once I've cleaned it up. There are many characters with extremely long plot summaries, and some characters with almost no plot summaries. So, we'll see how it is when its cleaned up and I have more sources and real world information. 1837:. Winning the Perrier award doesn't seem an insignificant achievement as far as I can see. And he (the character in a different show) was a runner-up for the award the previous year. Given what appears to be a very deliberate decision by the creators to maintain the in-universe persona in media interviews, it's difficult to completely discount some of the 4237:. I'm not comfortable with straight merges, though; if it's alright with you, I want to propose a merge discussion on the two relevant talk pages. A two-day wait for a response should suffice, although I doubt that anyone will respond. Do you want to go ahead with the actual process yourself, or do you want me to do it? Either way, I don't mind. Thanks. 5714:

makes the show, which is essentially just like the author. Unless the episode has an entirely different version that was produced, I don't see how that makes it more special than any chapter, and if the episode is censored, that's providing a real world context, which is irrelevant to this discussion (which is about keeping these topics without one).

335:. That way I know it's not going to remain stale but that it will steadily improve over the years. To make an analogy: say I felt like making an article about every single stop along a given railway line, would that then not be okay with you either? Or should there not be an article about Mos Eisley here because there's such a thing as Wookieepedia? 5758:

get away from the core of this site. The topic that the character appears in is what is notable, not the single character itself. The character is just a minor part of the topic, which is covered within the main articles or character list. It only becomes notable when it actually has enough information to separate it from the main topic.

435:

lost information already provided. The most important point I feel is that as far I understand it, on Knowledge most not-immediately-blindingly-obvious things happen by consensus. That redirecting was pretty unilateral. Why not leave a message on those episodes' talk pages? And perhaps on the main episode list too, for good measure? --

680:

few other people see it that way; just look at your talk page! Many of the articles which you redirect and soft-delete to have issues but why don't you act like other editors and tag it? I even wonder if you read the articles. In minutes you can redirect dozens of articles, that doesn't leave a lot of time for reading, does it?

5432:"...pages related to entertainment and sexuality represent more than 50 percent of the most visited Knowledge pages. In particular, many of the most popular pages are related to media celebrities and TV shows, which also constitute some of the most popular queries that were submitted to the search engines in 2006" 599:(unindent) OK, just to recap. TTN, you unilaterally went through a large number of articles that violate no Knowledge Policies and redirected them, effectively removing them from Knowledge for the vast majority of users. I reverted those redirects, and came here to look for a way to resolve this between adults. 2902: 224:

likely final outcome will be that most of the pages involved will be merged into one article with the articles for a couple of the characters deemed most important to the series (even though his is not an inclusion criteria) kept. This would probably have been the case whichever route was taken. Regards, ]

3321: 7691:

Many good editors have also left the project because of TTN's actions. To think that high ranking administrators such as JzG think TTN has never done a single thing wrong is something to be dismayed about. TTN is most certainly not a victim with a clean mind that always assumes good faith. When I see

6684:

so you don't end up in another edit war with him, though, but I'm not going to argue anymore. I support the changes you're going to make in this case. Speaking of which, I have a request. I can see that you're a Mergist, since you're in that category, and there's a set of articles that I'd like to

6679:

TTN, after some time and thought, I have to say you're probably right about the character merger. I can't fight when I've been legitimately beaten and I'm in the wrong, and for now, I'm in the wrong. I might recommend that some things in your version be brushed up, like the character images for the

5945:

No, I would just not participate in such an AfD. I only tend to participate in AfDs for articles that I really think are worth keeping or that are hoaxes that need snowball deletes, so that I am somewhat balanced in my keep/delete "votes." For those that I'm not sure about either way, I'll leave it

5876:

Once an article has been started, so long as it isn't a hoax, we should keep it and allow it to grow and improve over time as it is much easier to work with what's there rather that starting over again and again. Anyway, there's no reason we shouldn't be comprehensive as we have the editors and disk

5684:

If a book is a collection of essays, it doesn't really qualify, as each one is its own separate topic. I'm talking about any book with a plot line that breaks the plot line down into sections just as a television show does with episodes. Characters almost always have a clear redirect topic, so that's

5523:

Fictional topics are part of a larger topic, which they can be summarized within. It's not that fictional topics are bad; it's just that we give them too much weight. Allowing twenty repetitive paragraphs instead of five concise ones does not mean that we are covering the topic in any greater detail.

4646:

Look. When I have the time I'll try expanding the remaining articles. I've agreed with you on an extent that some of them aren't notable (such as the grandpa or the pimp) and have merged. The list of minor characters are for those which there isn't much information to sustain a full article. With the

4631:

Those aren't the sole indicators of notability. You're making the requirements too narrow. And it wasn't a side mention either in the Gunnar Hansen interview; a whole question was dedicated to the character. They're all important characters in a notable series of horror films that have been discussed

4508:

How can an actor talk about their character without talking about the film they appear in? Again, if we're using these restrictions, they'll be nothing left. The characters have appeared in two films. They've been discussed in various interviews, articles and reviews. There's merchandise based off of

4472:

Again, if you'll give me some time, I'll try to add to the articles when my schedule clears up. I'm only keeping about half of the original articles. Am I going to find individual essays about each character? No, but I should be able to find interviews and reviews which discuss the characters outside

4262:

Great. Let's hope some misguided users doesn't feel really indignant about the merge because "they're important; they were in SSBM". I'll chip in to the discussions if anyone objects. Oh, another thing, when Marth is merged, please maintain the few pertinent references to the info that will be merged

4175:

makes the subject more notable than it once was. Also the tanks use in more than one series of games makes a separate article more appropriate. Having said that I understand the article needs improvement, although I do not know much more then I added, as I do not play the games. (I noted the above

3158:

I recommend you add the link to debates concerning your redirection in the edit summary. Redirecting hundreds of articles with the insufficient summary "merge per discussion" is bewildering to other editors who try to follow your edits to tell what you have redirected and why. Thanks for considering,

2197:

I'm using the guideline wording. By that, significant coverage means that the sources address the subject directly. I also don't think they're just ratings, either; it can help to see why the episode was given 8.4. And while two sources is a bit small, we shouldn't throw the baby out now we know it's

1931:

Seriously, this is not a joke! I tried sorting through the South Park articles and redirected the non-notable ones I came across - four from season four, and four from season six, - and now a bunch of other users keep trying to restore them! Please go and tell them they're wrong! They won't listen to

760:

I won't speak for all of TTN's edits, but I have watched many of them, and they typically seem to be in line with Knowledge's criteria for notability and verifiability. I can understand the original poster's frustration, but I am confused by this: "You redirect articles, which know absolutely nothing

729:

I am sorry, but no one is "sick" about what TTN is doing; that is just your opinion, which in my opinion is misguided. Your complaint to the admin's notice board is unjustified and will not result in action being taken. TNT is perfectly correct to merge unnotable topics into large more coherent ones;

494:

Just ignore the tag. The only thing going on is that people want a switch to a style guideline rather than a notability guideline, which would just change the way that it is formatted. Your opinion on content is irrelevant, so I'm not going to respond to that. As for leaving messages, there is little

134:

No need to run and hide, Mr. TTN. I'm not going to go crazy and make irrational demands or childish questions, or plaster your page with cookie templates again. This is solely for business reasons. I brought up, some time ago, the question of "would you redirect the South Park episodes", and you said

7716:

That'll show you what happens to Wikipedians who ENFORCE WIKIPEDIA POLICY!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!! I hope anyone else who thinks about enforcing our policies over the wishes of the ignorant and malicious will look at what happened to you and QUAKE IN FEAR..... (This post is of an ironic and humorous nature

7675:

The arbcom ruling is likely going to impose restricitions on you and I suspect that I am not alone in greeting such a one-sided and foolish decision with dismay. Many good editors have left the project because of these kind of poor decisions; I hope that you will not follow that pattern, although it

7505:

Okay, but I will do this ONLY because there was an arbitration case (which I was unaware of) - I will add a lot of information so the article may get ridiculously long. This is not self-published either (as Shueisha/VIZ/etc have it) so this is bonafide reliable information. I said a while ago that I

7398:

I want to expand college basketball articles significantly, adding team articles and detailed, well-sourced articles about each season. There is not a source on the internet that is detailed about season-by-season results from all Division I teams, including game synopses, and wikipedia could be the

7394:

This is why I refuse to actively add to the mainspace. TTN is free to do as he pleases without facing sanction and several administrators support his every action. Even if he is restricted, he ignores it and nobody in power lifts a finger. He will not waste time answering questions with full detail,

7343:

shows, respectively, able to have full episode pages if they aren't "notable" like apparently all Fox animated sitcoms; is it honestly that they have a large enough fan base to fight for the right to have episode pages against those who would "streamline" an online encyclopedia? My other question is

5909:

If you did create such articles, I wouldn't delete them, and again, chapters in a book that is written by the same author really isn't the same as an episode for which many contributed. A book may have reviews of the full book, but episodes have previews and reviews of individual episodes regularly

5861:

Seeing as Spawn is able to hold an article on his own, that isn't a good example. An appearance in a video game like that would be called more of an extended cameo than anything else anyways. This is a collection of information. Just because we don't have an article on every minor character does not

5502:

section of wikiepedia will not win out, as the whole project is open to the public, so everything of public interest will be saved/readded and added until it's closed to the outside influens, but I don't understand why they (you) are trying to cause so much trouble! Some people need to go and become

4669:

Actually, Gunnar's quote could be used in an article if I decided to use it for reception. All redirecting is going to do is cause the images and links to be erased and make it harder for me when I get the time to expand the articles. These characters have appeared in two movies. They've appeared in

4614:

There is a difference between interviews about the characters to hype up or expand upon the films and those that truly get away from them. I've seen a few so far where the characters are talked about, but they do not actually separate themselves from the film. If you could just go and fetch one real

3295:

the deletion of 2 articles of a series which I, like that annoying 12-yr-old British kid who accuses us of being "vandals", am a fan of? To tell you the truth, I like the fact that I know all the badniks and all the vehicles Eggman rides in the series, but if that's not suitable for an encyclopedia,

2306:

Hi. I'm not sure who redirected it in the first place, but would you mind if I asked why it was redirected? If I remember, the article used to be much longer than any of the IP reversions, and currently I think another anon changed the redirect to a short sentence. How come it was redirected? Did it

679:

So many people are sick of what you're doing to articles: somebody has even described your "editing" of articles as "soft deleting". You redirect articles, which know absolutely nothing about, quoting various Knowledge policies and guidelines. You maintain that you are "improving" Knowledge but very

7888:

is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages

7047:

I was just thinking about those lists myself, lately. My idea was to propose that we have a single list, for all the recurring characters. Since they span more than one episode, usually more than 3 episodes, and sometimes more than a single season, I felt they would be the only ones that needed the

6685:

merge. I've proposed it to no objections, but I've never merged articles before because I am usually against it (though this REALLY needs to happen). Since this is my first merge, I was wondering if you could help me out with it, or maybe give me some pointers. The articles are to be merged into

5950:

in the millions that we have that I have no personal interest in, but as long as they are factually accurate, it doesn't really bother me if they exist. If people are willing to work on them and some segment of the population finds them useful, then it's not loss of sleep for me if they exist. In

5780:

that have unique stories each episodes and frequently have guest writers and directors). "Essentially just like" is not "just like." The main issue that I see is that the articles just need more and better sourcing and not deletion or redirecting. Too often I've participated in AfDs for articles

5757:

If the character is part of a single film that has a few adaptations that do not really mean anything, it goes to the main article. If the movie has various different pieces of separate media, it is essentially a series, so it will likely have a character list. See this is where you really start to

5699:

Chapters in books that are not separate essays are really not analogus as individual chapters will still have the same characters created by the same author whereas episodes can have different directors and characters portrayed by different actors and actresses and can have different versions (some

5626:

That's what allows us to cover topics like video games, television shows, and other "non-scholarly" pieces of media in the first place, not every single sub-topic that can easily be summed up within the main topic. These are not their own independent topics unless they show that they're more than a

5221:

When I saw in my watchlist that you had removed 35KB of text, I thought for sure I was going to revert...but then I examined what was actually removed, and have to for the most part agree with it. Character bios should be short and the revlevant plot info should be in the main game article. Great

4457:

If we were to delete every character article that isn't as iconic as Superman, there'd be barely anyone left. The characters I left up have all appeared in two or three films, are all fairly popular and it shouldn't be too hard to find a number of external sources about them, which I will try to do

2184:

If we're going by the general guideline, "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject", a review is generally accepted as a significant coverage, IGN is a well known all-purpose review site and TWP is a notable review site, and are both reliable, and both have no affiliation

1283:

I have no opinion on the specific removals involved, but the assertion that only a fan is allowed to edit the article is patently absurd. Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a fanboy club. If anyone wants to build an exhaustive list of all characters in some video game, a wiki specifically for that

683:

If you have concerns about an article, place a note on its talk page or place a note on its main contributors' talk pages. Don't make rash decisions without consulting people; you are not the only editor on Knowledge. A bit more common sense and courtesy and a little less "policy-bashing". A little

463:

Oh, and one more thing: "maybe the pilot and the finale are exceptions, but they'll go until sources are provided", you say. Do you have any suggestions on how people are to find out they need to provide sources if those articles don't for all intents and purposes exist anymore for the overwhelming

7348:

when Mozart has written a new opera for the Emperor Joseph II, only for Joseph to say "My dear young man, don't take it too hard...there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect." When asked "Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?", Mozart is basically told to

6629:

Looking through them, they're all just plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. I don't know if they have potential (a couple have relevant notes in the trivia section), but placing them on a list would be the best thing to do. It's easier to build up from a few paragraphs than try to cut a bunch down.

5807:

I assumed the shows like the Twilight Zone were a given, but even shows like the X Files feature sets of main characters and one episode characters similar to one chapter characters. Each season would effectively work as a book, which do sometimes contain separate stories that are part of a larger

5713:

Unless the show is really strange, episodes are not going to feature anything but the core characters, played by the same actors, and some one episode characters, which is just like various chapters of various books. While they're written by different people, they're still the same core group that

5670:

In some instances yes, Chapter 18 of "Some Random Book" can be a valid topic. Many scholarly books, for example, are collections of essays and sometimes some of these essays have lasting significance, just as some characters and episodes can have lasting significance as well. The main thing with

5641:

I think DGG hits on a great concept, which is that the episode and character articles are in effect subpages of the larger articles and thus inherit the sourcing and notability from the larger articles. I cannot really think of a good reason why we wouldn't want to be as comprehensive as possible

5567:

People don't know as much about wikias as they do about wikipedia itself. Plus, many of the wikias are in terrible shape, even compared to the episode pages you guys consider "terrible shape." For example, some aren't even regularly updated to the most recent episode of the show or contain all the

4874:

Sorry to butt in here, but if redirecting and not merging is the problem editors are having here, can't you copy and paste the plot summary into a hidden comment, so the material would be easy to find and allow editors to trim. To satisfy attribution, you could cite the article you merged from. If

4193:

Given that the newest game just came out, I would submit that it is too early to simply dismiss the articles notability. While the article does need work, I do not think it should be deleted. As for redirecting, to where? The existing redirect went to an article that barely went past mentioning

4120:

Yes sir indeed. I'll be keeping an eye on the two of you. I must say TTN, I am disappointed by your recent actions of taking matters into your own hands and making these numerous controversial edits without initiating a discussion with the parties involved. You are a good editor TTN and we've been

3865:

regarding this that would prohibit removal OR restoration of episode/character articles for the duration of the case, and attempting to redirect these articles now, shortly after the proposed injunction went up for votes, could easily be seen as an attempt to "beat ArbCom to the punch" and get the

3726:

There was no one single discussion; they were all over the place. The Pokemon wikiproject started discussing a while ago, and came to the conclusion to have both lists and articles for each evolutionary line. I joined the discussions at that point to just have the twenty five lists instead. You'll

3575:

It asserts notability, but it does not establish that the topic needs an article. I will happily leave it alone if more sources are found (not trivial ones like "It premiered with X and y, though). You need to state that in the first place instead of stating that the current version is fine on its

1863:

Well, how wishy-washy can I be? Apparently very in this instance. I'm changing it back to "keep". My original weighing of the opinions and arguments was correct. The merge to Darkplace were not compatible with the content and the deletes were actually only two, yourself and one other. I discounted

289:

Articles need a certain kind of information in order to exist. These episodes do not have that information available. While it may be your own view that it is fine to leave them, there are various policies and guidelines available to explain why we cannot cover them. You are free to use tv.com and

223:

and I'm not sure if it would be right to negate the ongoing discussion. It might also look as if I was trying to close the debate becasue I didn't like what the (probable) result was going to be. I agree that at this stage a no consensus close looks most likely, however I think in the end the most

7490:

There is too much to add to fit in that article (remember that I have to add info about everyone else, I.E. Mello, Near, Matsuda, etc.), and to add non-free images cannot be used in "list" articles so I have to restore the original standalone articles in order to use images. I only intend to make

6409:

Well I'm not that concerned with what happens to it after the FLC. The article was already neat and tidy with the tables looking like they do, I just spent 3 hours yesterday putting references in and fixing up the intro and took it to FLC to test the waters on lists of these kinds. If the content

5655:

Redundant plot summaries and descriptions that fit within other topics will never be suitable sub-topics. The absolute limit is a character list, which is often still too much. The point of this site is to provide overviews of topics, not every minor aspect. By keeping nice, condense sections, we

4915:

You and I would differ on the opinion of "best". The "best" thing you could do is leave readers with a basic understanding of the episodes, so as not to leave a useless table as you did with the Billy and Mandy list. Though I may have been arguing keep for the movie, the point was that I was fine

4852:

Incorrect, most of those episode summaries has at least a one-line description you can pick up and throw in a list. Hell, you could even be lazy and just shove them in using indents. Either way, the information would be there. It will not kill you to take some time off from redirecting to fill in

2279:

Your recent edit to the Putt-Putt article claimed that there was not enough valid information for the article to exist, ignoring the two valid references on the page. Without any explanation on the discussion page, this edit could be perceived as vandalism and has been reverted. If you have valid

1841:

stories written with an "in-universe" perspective; that's obviously entwined with the presentation to the point of being part of the humour. I think that's markedly different than, say, WP articles about computer games or TV show episode plots written from an in-universe perspective, usually with

779:

The real problem is the extraordinary accumulation of non-encyclopedic material. This is disruptive editing, even if done in all innocence - defending it in the clear violation of our policies is rather worse. TTN's efforts have been routinely endorsed by editors familiar with our policies and he

434:

Second: I don't happen to agree that it is a good thing to take a deletionist stance here. That's only this editor's view, of course. WP:N and to an even greater extent WP:WAF are common sense guidelines, open for interpretation, and should be interpreted, I think, so as to minimise the amount of

154:. You don't have to do anything except read through them and tell me if you think any of them should be redirected. I have no idea how to tell if something should, and you're an expert on it, after all. If you decide some of them should be redirected, I'll do it myself. Please and thank you, TTN. 5894:

Yet, as you've shown with chapters of a book, not every topic is its own valid topic. I was in a crazy and pointy mood, and decided to create hundreds of stubs on different chapters, would you defend them? If not, that shows that there is a certain level at which we need to keep topics together.

4674:

says "critical reception, viewership or sales figures, history and development, and other information from reliable sources" are some of the required stuff, and with the exception of "viewership or sales figures" I could fit the rest of the stuff in their articles. I understand the articles need

3288:

Oh, and another thing, this is WIKI-PEDIA. It's our choice to edit articles to follow the rules. At this point, like you (which I am assuming from your "malicious actions," as a mod calls it), I don't give a damn about the information here if it ain't suitable for an encyclopedia. Do you think I

7896:

Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or

6471:

Seeing as there are season articles, you should probably just split it up between them, and place the second paragraph of the lead somewhere. I don't know if you're interested in the series, but it would be beneficial to work on those if you do have some interest invested in it. As for the tag,

5395:

I honestly have to doubt that the maybe 50,000 (total speculation) or so articles on fiction out of two million are the only things that have made this site popular. There are certainly many people that come here for that kind of information, but I honestly can't imagine that the unencyclopedic

4426:

Some of the characters I will agree with you should be redirected. (Such as Charlie Altamont, Banjo & Sullivan, George Wydell, etc.) However, the main characters (Captain Spaulding being the most obvious example) ARE fairly iconic in the horror genre and have appeared on t-shirts, halloween

2225:

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here

7553:

admins are able to revert them? I'm under the assumption that the part about admins isn't specifically only allowing them to revert, only that they should specifically watch for it (though it could just be really screwed up wording like the rest of it). As long as it is in accordance with the

7364:

Also, as a side note, I understand this is mainly about references not being verifiable. That goes under my "cleaning up" point, and that is not what I am asking you about. I am merely posing the question of why you only note that references are not verifiable without providing some sort of

4442:

I'll put the redirects on five of the articles, being the minor characters who only appeared for one film. However, the main family that appeared in both films are fairly significant and have a cult following. I'm very busy, but when I get the time I should be able to add interviews, critical

5487:

is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.", I really don't understand why the whole world fiction is being pushed out? Next it'll be abything of relation to pop-culture! Unfortunatly, due to the nature of

4215:

TTN, I restored the previous contents again. While I agree that the page needs work, and possibly should be merged as a section in some other article, neither of those things is going to happen if the existing version is simply removed in favour of a redirect. Note, I posted this here as a

4829:

If it were to satistfy my ego, I'd undo a lot more of the nonsense you try. This is about you dumping the work on other editors because you feel it isn't your job. If you don't want to perform a merge, don't redirect, because I assure you that attrition by edit warring will not work. —

5656:

tell the reader what they need to know about the topic. If they become interested enough in the topic to want to know what happens to character X during minute 18 of episode Y, that's up to them to find out. Do you think that Chapter 18 of "Some Random Book" is also a valid topic?

6247:

Yeah, any episode list with red links should always be delinked. I think that is one of the reasons that we have such a problem on our hands. People just think because something is linked that it is a viable topic. I'll take care of that one later if you don't feel like doing it.

641:

I have made a start at reverting the more recent of your undiscussed bulk deleting-by-redirecting. I recommend a full AfD-style discussion for each TV show / whatever whose episodes you have been deleting, before you make any more such deletions. See complaints in sections above.

308:

Oh, I totally understand WP:V. Do you know of any information in any of those episodes that is either challenged or likely to be challenged? This is fairly uncontroversial information, and while it may be your own personal view Knowledge should not cover this, I don't see why we

5552:

They should look for a wikia on that sort of topic, for instance, South Park Wiki instead of the South Park pages here, and look for info there. Too many people prefer an encyclopedia which isn't going to give them what they want to know, instead of a fan-encyclopedia which is.

7450:

If I can't cover a season despite the large amount of articles written about it, then this project as a whole is far worse off than I originally thought. There's a reason why the wikiproject for college basketball is dead. They can't even add anything that's actually relevant.

7626: 6929:

Seeing as it seems to have no end in sight, and the injunction is so loose and harsh at the same time that it's laughable, I'm going to at least place merge tags that can be dealt with after the injunction is over (unless merging video game characters will also be workable).

6290:

Hi! I've noticed that all your edits remove content from the encyclopedia, or so it seems from a casual browsing of your contribs. Have you ever tried contributing some? Say, perhaps, finding some citations for the stuff you delete for needing one? Just curious. Cheers!

4774:

There are eleven other language articles on this topic, the links to them just vanish. Is there a way of displaying them in the page that the redirect points to, or a way of making some inclusion, or do you think it's just not important enough to preserve what you don't find

7344:

simply that if you are trying so hard to keep Wikipedian standards high, why are you only redirecting pages you do not want to have with no support from the community at large, without contributing some of your own information? It is rather comparable to the famous scene in

7303:

Well, this isn't a non-controversial AfD so, if I were to withdraw and close it early, it could actually be challenged at deletion review. I'm going to go ahead and let it run its course. I'm still not convinced myself that the non-mergable items are worth keeping. Cheers!

5609:, i.e. that it ia an encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedia, almanac, etc.; in other words, it goes beyond any papaer encyclopedia and is open to all editors willing to help categorize the sum total of human knowledge so long as primary and/or secondary evidence exists. 794:

TTN's efforts have also been routinely admonished by editors familiar with our policies. It's all well and good that the guy wants to improve the encyclopedia, but let's not kid ourselves and say that his methods aren't controversial, regardless of their effects. Fair's

7132:". This page should contain a list of all the series regulars, a list of all the recurring characters (characters spanning more than 2 episodes), and a small list of any guest star that might have returned for a second outting but wasn't really a "recurring" character? 5310:

It's the kind of thing that I'm going to bother with. You are not wise to pull crap thing on me. I've defend you, stuck my neck out for you, have been a big supporter of cleaning up these articles, and yet here you treat me as you would treat some screaming fanboy? --

5862:

mean that we are not covering them in enough detail. In general, a minor television show will have a plot section, a character section, and an episode list in the least. That is generally enough to cover them. We don't need twenty paragraphs per character to do that.

3272:

Hello there, friend. ^__^ Incase you're interested, I made a response to what you said to me on my talk page. In sort, I'm not making a point by wiping out pages for the hell of it (which I'M NOT), but if you want to see the full reponse, then go to my Contact page.

4230:

I agree about the merges. Both are dead-in-the-water articles in which they can't really develop because neither has any out-of-universe info really available. Roy has a FE6 list as a destination; the only plausible one for Marth is in the "characters" section of

344:

As for the sourcing: what sort of sources did you have in mind? Just like the existence of railway stops or Mos Eisley can easily be documented, Gilmore Girls episodes can easily be documented. Would a reference to a TV Guide or an internet site be sufficient? --

2604:

Please do me a favour and when you cut templates give an explanation why yo do it. For example "This article is an episode of a TV series and not a film" when you cut a film template. I can understand some cuts you did recently but not all of them. Friendly,

7525:

You have violated the arbcom injunction by redirecting several articles on episodes and/or characters. Only administrators are authorized by the injunction to revert such changes. These edits, earlier adding of merge tags and a redirection against consensus

4647:

major characters, there are. In addition to the plot summaries, there's a lot of background stuff to be added, which I will. I've looked at Knowledge's notability guidelines and they do satisfy the main criteria. They're not on the same level as someone as

5793:

for popular culture content when a much larger number of good faith contributors and casual readers actually find the information useful and relevant. After all, the main thing an encyclopedia is is a reference guide and collection of information. Best,

3135:

I came here for another topic, the Pee Wee's thing, but saw this, and wanted to say thanks. As to Pee Wee's, I'm gonna hit the talk and ask for solid citations about the Emmy's. maybe they can bring enough to talk to actually improve rather than edit war.

218:

I nominated the articles together as I felt that the arguements for deletion applied to all of the articles. I do not think I should withdraw the nomination now as there has been a good amount of discussion between users with differing opinions, I do not

135:

you'd get around to it. There are a lot of them, and many of them are notable enough to be included in Knowledge. Well, I've thought about it since then, and it might be better to cut to the chase, I decided. Could you look at these five articles, then:

5194:

case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (c.f. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message

379:, which are third party sources (not the episode). The information to establish notability is information placed in the real world. For television episodes, it includes director commentary and information taken from published reviews, among others (see 4349:

Roy's been merged. Do you fancy contributing to discussion at the talk page for Marth's merge—some anons have been hurling abuse at me, calling me "Assnerd". I know why you prefer to bypass discussions now—it saves you from talking to idiots. Thanks.

5458:

I'm talking about pure fictional topics, most of which are unencyclopedic. While many people come here for television shows and popular and iconic characters like Superman, the unencyclopedic articles most likely do not make up much of that traffic.

4597:

Iconic within the horror genre, yes, but not necessarily the same level as Superman, which is what you seem to be expecting with this. And the interview I supplied you with Gunnar Hansen mentions the Spaulding character in detail independent of the

6550:

I would probably merge that second paragraph of the lead to the episode list, and redirect it there (with the "r from merge" tag). If you merge anything to the season articles, just link to the article being merged, and I think that's good enough.

5918:, and other magazines and newspapers. Episodes are treated in a fashion different than chapters in a book. Episodes have individual ratings, individual chapters do not have ratings by chapters. Episodes win awards. Chapters do not. Regards, -- 3453:, which requires topics to be given a real world perspective through the inclusion of reliable sources. The person reverting was the one linking to it. Anyways, you need to add sources in order for it to be notable. I suggest that you read through 3601:

Just like a specific award(s), things like this help notability, but they do not warrant a large plot summary. The citation can either be placed on the episode list, the main article, a season article, or somewhere else that would be relevant.

1120:

Before you even try to edit the Sonic the Hedgehog article you must answer one question. Are you a Sonic fan? Because if you aren't you have NO right to edit them espicialy the really important characters, they might be one timers there still

3192:

Look through some of the recent archives, and you'll see some talk of it. It was spread all throughout different talk pages, and there is no specific discussion that provides a list style number consensus, if that's what you're looking for.

7554:

injunction, what exactly is the problem? Radiator Springs has a long history with various discussions over various articles, so you may want to find them all before making claims like that (though, I have no idea how the chronology goes).

3847:

For the love of.. please, I beg of you two to just wait on those articles. The Scrubs episodes in particular have really rubbed people the wrong way, and regardless of who's right or wrong, just give it a little more time to cool off. --

232:

Generally, for characters that belong in the mass pages, we go by their specialty first. So animals would go on the animals page, even if they are recurring or one time characters, celebrities go on the celebrities page, etc, etc. --

4025:

He is one of these strange people that cannot understand that fiction can be summed up and described in main articles. He just happens to vote in a lot of deletion discussions and provide extremely irrelevant arguments and sources.

4121:

through a lot here, but the recent string of ANI reports against you have really hurt your image in my opinion. While I agree with most of the edits you do, it doesn't hurt to talk things out if someone else disagrees with you. --

2971:

Um, you wanna afd it? I don't really want to go through the trouble of setting it up. Initially, I thought of redirecting it but reconciled because it may just start a senseless war. I attempted to have it speedied (didn't work).

571:

WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPV are all met by the removed articles. There is no reason to make Knowledge worse by removing information that meets Knowledge's policies, other than to piss off a lot of people and perhaps WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

3215:

I'm not trying to find one specific debate, and having several discussions on separate talk pages could be a good thing. Would you mind giving me the links to exact talk pages, archives, sections, whatever there are? Thanks, -

3858: 687:

Why don't you stop deleting information and redirecting pages and be like everyone else, CONTRIBUTE to an article. Everybody on Knowledge wants to make a good, quality online encyclopedia; everybody besides you, that is.

464:

majority of visitors? Better to leave them as is, with warning, probably. That way they're much more likely to get improved sooner, adding information to the 'pedia, and making us all and the world happier bunnies. :) --

3481:

It is outrageous that you are repeatedly redirecting that article on the highest rated episode in cable TV history, which provides solid, non-plot based information and references, while ignoring the talk page entirely.

2547:

I imagine that along with that first episode that there are possibly a couple more good ones, but there is very little chance that you'll be able to do anything with the rest. Resurrect any that have sources available.

5582:

Which is because a lot of people don't know about them. Geesh, everything's connected, after all! Anyway, but with South Park Wiki in particular, that's different. A user there who calls himself after the old name of

4946:

There are other places to grab a summary if you really have trouble picking a line out of the episode pages (TV.com, etc). Making just a table is only making a fancy version of the no-content problem, nothing more. —

2024: 922:

OK, thank you it didnt look like theri was a reason, but im sure this will help get people to notice it. THank you for the explantion and good idea! But couldn't you ahve just done that in one edit for each episode?

4201:

If we do not have—at least—a detailed section on this fictional vehicle (which article would this go in?) then details will keep being added hodge-podge in a variety of places. (Like the material I will clean from

7379:

LOL, I'll take your lack of response as a subtle hint that you didn't like what I had to say or an admittance of being in the wrong. Either way, I hope my diatribe had...an effect on your judgment, if I can be so

5321:

Sorry if I was a bit overreactive just now. Just, sometimes, I don't understand you. I don't want to see you get blocked, nor do I want you to piss more people off than you need to (for lack of better words). --

3501:

I have discussed with you before, and you do not actually like to discuss, only wikilawyer. If you want the article to stand, add sources. Otherwise, place the citation elsewhere, as it does not hold an article.

1325: 6526:

Then where would the best place be to redirect DVD release articles to? The main page of the TV show, the list of episodes? It's not going to be possible to redirect one article to each season page, is it? --

1258:

Why are you removing articles without any warning? And the articles that you are stating as the reason, are awful or just list (which are discouraged on wikipedia) and as such are more likely to be deleated!

4689:

There are tons of reviews that discuss the characters and actors at length. Maybe not the characters alone, but again, this isn't in the guidelines. Can you show me the guidelines which supports your way of

2040:

It'll be deleted in four days using the empty category tag. That's because the articles in the subcategories didn't need to exist, so those are also empty. That and another one were the only articles in it.

1342: 7435:

Newspapers do cover each game. There wouldn't be an article per game, but per season. Each season has hundreds of dedicated, full newpaper and magazine articles across several publications that cover their

2464:

when you carry out redirects and merges? Possibly even a new template designed specifically to keep track of episode redirects? This would help keep track of the redirects and their page histories. Thanks.

1615:

No, it can only be interpreted as trying to keep a certain standard. In that case, it's actually stopping him from wikilawyering by saying "I can name a book about the series, so this episode is notable."

1297:

I was trying to point out that people shouldn't do certain edits on certain articles where they don't know what they're what talking about, and a Sonic fan would definately know what they're talking about.

270:

As far as I understand it, the articles are now effectively gone for any but the most experienced and/or tenacious wikipedians, making it difficult for people to add sources or make the articles better.

2949:

I am going to stop contributing actively for a bit, but if you need help or assistance in the RD efforts, while the usual suspects blow hot air vacuously demanding their precious fan pages, let me know.

7692:

AfD's closed where the admin says, "You know what, it doesn't matter what I judge on this closing, because TTN will do whatever he wants anyway," that is a big problem. But yeah, keep fighting on that

1220:

Theres still no reason for you to delete important characters like Black Doom it's practically vandalism, people come on to wikipedia for info and they need all the facts and your deleting those facts.

7491:

three standalone articles, but as I add more info more character articles *might* break away. I have stated on the talk pages that I will restore the articles once I get HTR 13. Now that I have it...

6704:

The articles are nothing but plot summaries, so it would be best to merge each summary to its respective game under a plot or story header. After that, you can either work to make them better or add

3832:

It's been a couple of weeks and of course nothing has been added to establish notability *shock*. I have rv'd Season 1 & will start the others. If you could look in on the rest, that'd be great.

7027:

may be helpful. If neither of those work, you can just leave them for now. The fighting games are a large mess that will have to undergo thorough cleanup, so those will be taken care of eventually.

7008:

I'm fairly certain doesn't meet the criteria for a separate article. I know roughly how Knowledge works but I'm new, while you're a well-established user, so could you help with this issue? Thanks.

5249:

about them. That way, the WikiProject can evaluate them and choose the most appropriate course to take regarding the articles. It also helps us create a list of what still needs to be cleaned up. --

2730:

It is malicious in the fact that TTN hasn't notified anyone of the redirect by all means redirect but open it up to discussion, I for one would have supported the redirect in the form of a merge. --

1775: 5436:

Does this mean we should accept any and everything? No, of course not. However, it does suggest that there is a far greater interest in entertainment-related material than you perhaps realize. --

1033: 4810:

And neither should other editors be forced to cleanup after your messes. If you're unwilling to make the effort to perform a proper merge, you have no business redirecting in the first place. —

2023:

The category would have no use if there weren't subcategories. Now that the category does has it its use it's pointless to remove the main seaquest article from it. See also all the examples in

829:. In particular, Knowledge articles are not plot summaries or lists of statistics. Knowledge focuses on covering the real-world aspect of fictional works. To this end, we must establish a basic 1493:, and if possible could you leave a video comment? Keep up the good work, if you don't have time to watch it, I can understand perfectly. But don't worry it's completely relevant to Knowledge. 7898: 7890: 5175: 7834: 5331:

Uh, nothing bad was meant by that. I just assumed that you weren't familiar with which content was kept and which content wasn't kept for the list entries, and wrote the summary accordingly.

5157: 3430:

the movies under those categories have to be notable according to YOU for them to have a page on Knowledge? There are movies/TV specials/pilots under those categories that may not be notable

1512:. Anyway, TTN, don't listen to these "threatening" posts. They're just trying to scare you into quitting. I say, keep up the good work. {^_^} And just letting you know, I reverted an edit by 3590:

I don't think multiple sources are needed; one might be simply enough. The source in question does address that HSM2/HM night directly, and "most watched cable episode ever" is verifiable.

2579: 2575: 706: 1654:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 1025:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 7234: 7070: 3242:

I mostly waited until everything was all set and ready to go before dealing with the articles, so I'm pretty much as unfamiliar with the discussions as you are. Look through the archives

2810:

Hey there! STOP! Look at this nifty icon I found of a hand. Everyone was doing it, so I thought I would join in. Now that you've seen it, please resume whatever it is you were doing. --

2563: 7073:. (Just look at the recurring characters. If we go with my idea, they will be the only ones on that list and you can already see some of the real world information I've found on them). 4718:

None of the notability guidelines are listing the requirements that you are. None of them say that the character has to be the sole subject of numerous articles to achieve notability.--

1724:, as well as the recurring characters? If so, what gives you the right to delete them and redirect without any discussion? As I said, if you're going to delete those, you should delete 7129: 1002: 1467:

Why do you keep removing the images? They'll die if they don't stay. We'll reduce the stuff down to what you've got it at, but the images stay. That's final. End of story. Good day.

1661:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

1032:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

4632:

regularly in interviews, reviews, merchandise, etc. They're notable. I keep on finding links that discuss the characters and you keep on making up new rules to discredit them.--

5120: 4771: 2334: 2080: 6917:

Given the current RfAR injunction, it may be better to hold off on applying merger tags at the moment, even for the most obvious cases which you appear to be tagging. Thanks,

4561:

What are you looking for then? Interviews don't count apparently. Reviews don't count. And then you want an unrelated article to mention Spaulding, and then that's too brief.--

1594: 6603: 5070:

Sorry TTN, I tried to give you a hand back at the episodes, citing guidelines as my reasons, but it looks like we'll have to waste time starting a discussion. Your thoughts?

5038:

Don't mind me but I honestly didn't know there was a difference between redirecting a page and calling it a merge. Of course, if I'd known this, I wouldn't have been a klutz

979:

Generally, we leave talk pages as they are to just keep an archive of them. I do see that people sometimes redirect them afterwards, but the general stance is to leave them.

6360: 4579:

states that "detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance" which I could easily do with the characters, which I could easily do. And anyway, I found an

1792:

I am reverting your multiple removal of correct categories on various articles. I may not bother giving edit summaries as you have not explained why you are removing them.

7835: 7297: 5191: 5183: 5167: 4177: 3862: 3399: 2571: 2564: 7439:

It would be difficult to put up individual seasons from before 2000, however, unless the local newspapers were kind enough to digitally archive all of their newspapers.

3296:

then it had no business being in wikipedia. It's all unnecessary gamecruft and all in-universe information with no sources, outer-universe information, and the like. --

2318: 1236:

This site is not a place for people to learn every minute detail of their favorite series. It is an encyclopedia, which provides the basic details of a general topic.

387:). The information does not exist for these episodes (maybe the pilot and the finale are exceptions, but they'll go until sources are provided), so they cannot exist. 7771:

I doubt it. He's been gone this lone before, only to come back and continue his rampage. Honestly, I think it would be better if he would "take a rest," so to speak.

3870:, I suspect that anything that could be seen as an attempt to "end run" the arbitration would do nothing to help your case when the ArbCom makes its final decision. 3486:. I don't want to keep reverting, but if you won't even engage in a discussion, what am I supposed to do? Just let you unilaterally impose your will on the article? 2922:

Now how about getting to those Fatal Fury and Street Fighting articles, cuz I'll probably delete 'em myself due to lack of notability and funcruft soon. Peace! ^__^

2270: 937:

I had originally expected the removal of the tags to only take a few minutes with AWB, but the wide variety of tags and the multiple level ones sort of killed that.

7164:

Well, if we do that I wouldn't make a "table" form like in the sandbox. I would go with the FF layout. My thoughts are that each section would look like it does at

7913: 5211: 4198:

games. Almost all of the material in the article is from a real world POV (I cannot comment on the tank's in game capabilities beyond what is in the references.)

942: 193: 6779:

Afd tags and tags relating to G/FAs should remain in talk pages of redirects. Anything else should go unless the project has a "redirect class" for the articles.

5621: 5587:

always keeps the main page and the current episode pages produced. I mainly work on the old episode pages and the character pages. But it's about 80% up to date.

1695:

Thanks for deleting all those episode articles. It's not like I didn't work very hard on them to have them unceremoniously deleted. What a positive contribution.

290:

wikia.com in order to read and write about that information. Unless you can pull some sources out of a hat, expect them to return to redirects sometime tomorrow.

5543: 2594: 2387: 7627:

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Question_about_creation_of_new_character_articles_upon_discovery_of_new_real_world_information

3691:

Neither of those will being going for a while (Bulbasuar will, but Pikachu is actually staying as an article), so there's no way to wait for those to be empty.

6367:

has come up, and so would appreciate your input. Please, however, if you feel it is a breach of FICT, don't tag it until the FLC is over, pleeeeeaaaase? :) --

4386:

Certainly. There shouldn't be an article dedicated to two episodes that have had just about a minimal effect on anything. There's already a section on this at

3805:

After you have redirected please remember to remove/update the tags where you have merged to. For example you forgot to remove the Meta Knight merge tags from

2383: 6489:

Just to clarify, a notability tag would be better than a speedy tag? If the info is merged into each season though, then it can be speedied, right? Thanks --

6192: 6145: 6125: 4655:, but the guidelines never said they have to be. I'd really appreciate it if you left the articles alone and let me improve them when my workload is lifted.-- 2131:

A quick review @AN/I will bring you up to speed. I have to head offline; care to look at the rest? To thee with failing hands we pass the torch and all that.

1056: 413:

I respectfully disagree. First, about WP:EPISODE: that comes with a header that says "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed" (and even

6027:

Coincidence! I was just leaving TTN a message and I edit conflicted with you Stephen. That guy's obviously an imposter so he should be blocked indefinitely.

5946:

up to others to determine their value, but the main thing is that such articles really wouldn't bother me per se. There's probably thousands of articles on

5671:

characters are that they often appear in not just one movie, due to video game and comic adaptations and so a logical redirect is not always clear. Best, --

2715:

Ooooh, a malicious redirect. Would those be the ones that sit there and tease you with their redirectness, or does their maliciousness go further than than?

2294: 274:

I've gone and reverted those edits you did on Gilmore Girls. I'm sure we can get to a consensus as to how to best tackle this, without doing rash stuff. --

6990: 6602:

On another note, what's your view on all these character pages? Are they notable to hold their own or would the majority be better off being merged into a

6009: 5196: 2352: 671: 625: 5396:

articles attract more than five percent of the traffic here. If those people have to go to other sites for us to have an encyclopedic standard, so be it.

5024: 4990: 4960: 4933: 4866: 4843: 908:

I'll be redirecting them fairly soon, seeing as the project has a fairly good grasp on it. I also hope that it'll draw more help for the season articles.

7017: 6314: 3661:

OK, we are talking about two remaining articles here. The categories serve absolutely no categorization purpose, so why are you being stubborn about it?

2167: 699: 7766: 5370:

Serious question for TTN, specifically. Specifically meaning I do not value the views or actions of his lamprays as anything but disruptive behavior. -

3630: 6674: 6172: 5959: 5940: 5926: 5904: 5889: 5871: 5802: 5708: 5694: 5679: 5665: 5650: 5636: 4906: 3814: 2731: 2701: 718: 257:

information from Knowledge can make this a better encyclopedia. Tightening up the writing, sure, trimming duplicate information, no problem, but this?

174: 7780: 6698: 1502: 974: 946: 902: 798:

More importantly, can you point at me at a definition of "encyclopedic" or discussion on the same? The way I see it, we have no clear idea of what we

739: 6998: 5538:

What happens when people coming to Knowledge expect information instead of a "concise" bundle of sentences that doesn't tell them anything though? -

3561:

The information itself obviously demonstrates notability. I'm sure other sources can be found, however—will you back off if other sources are added?

2651: 2376: 247:

I noticed you started to redirect a whole string of articles about Gilmore Girls episodes to Episode Lists somewhere around 2 AM om 7 January 2008.

211: 7271: 6466: 4727: 4713: 4699: 4684: 4664: 4641: 4626: 4607: 4592: 4570: 4556: 4539: 4518: 4503: 4482: 4467: 4452: 1389: 6092: 5104: 3777: 2323: 1535: 7426:

in regards to your basketball example. Does it suck that we can't cover some things because of lack of sources? Yep, but that's the way it is. --

7389: 7374: 6042: 5596: 5562: 4096: 1741: 755: 205: 7752: 7417: 7204:

I'll see what I can do in my sandbox and when I'm finished I'll give you a ring, as well as notify all the character list pages of the proposal.

7662: 7290: 5577: 4233: 4134: 2871: 1553: 7889:

or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified

7637: 2780: 1830: 1755: 1481: 1395:

If your going to delete a character or merge a character at least make a good discussion of it before doing so. Its getting very frusturating.

7603:

to let them know about an important court date concerning the restraining order. That job is left to the cops (or in this case, janitors with

7023:

I suggest just trying to explain your position the best that you can, and seeing if the two of you can work it out. Otherwise, asking over at

3676:

Gotta say ... in terms of battle-picking, this seems like a poor choice. Let's get the articles killed, and then we can speedy the categories.

2055:

A clearer edit summary would have been helpful then. All this only works of course if your redirects will stick. I am not so sure about that.

1575: 581: 318:

What you did there was essentially "soft-deleting" the articles, and I feel, as in the deletion of articles, that the burden is on the person

7705: 7648: 7460: 7430: 4216:

courtesy, but any further discussion we have about the article itself should probably be on its talk page for the benefit of other editors. —

2358: 1865: 1847: 1662: 1291: 988: 932: 917: 888: 7100:. Where do you suggest moving the information about the main characters? Are you suggesting removing them from the main article completely? 6112: 3011: 2501: 2425: 2405: 2346: 6991: 6662: 6624: 5518: 4799: 3398:

article you decided to get rid of. You justify the redirect to the list of episodes in the article's history by asking people to check out

2857: 2739: 2724: 2669: 2532:. I'm still working on all of them to get them good artcle status then maybe also featured article. so stop redirecting the episode pages. 774: 7808: 7399:

definitive source for college basketball. But, a quick study of how this site handles users like TTN shows that such a project would be a

5326: 4920:. Same thing applies here. Redirection without trying to preserve the content is no better than deletion, and I know you can do better. — 4784: 3884:

I doubt it will end up doing anything productive. Even if the fans don't rever,t there are still plenty of other people willing to do it.

3126: 3071: 2829: 1249: 1214: 1179: 1160: 1146: 7543: 7358: 7036: 6639: 6583: 6560: 6545: 6521: 6507: 6481: 6428: 6404: 5533: 3852: 2938: 2330: 2299: 2155: 1404: 1341:

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Knowledge, as you did to

1324:

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Knowledge, as you did to

1314: 1274: 1229: 1198: 1130: 874: 789: 6731: 6717: 5419: 5405: 3907: 3879: 3596: 3305: 2492:

has been created and is starting to be used. Could you please use it when you carry out your merges, s-merges and redirections? Thanks.

1540:

I see they're still at it... the trolls... Nice seeing you again TTN! I'll be looking forward to working with you again really soon. --

1364: 1107: 1093: 657: 7616: 7563: 7276: 6984: 6344: 5260: 3720: 3031: 2794: 2643: 2629: 2474: 2238: 1960:

TTN, on my talkpage, could you please leave a link to the article/s discussing episode notability guidelines? PLEASE! Please, help me!

960: 850: 331:

I realise I could get some of the information on IMDB.com or any number of other sites. That is not the point: I really like having it

186: 7580: 7313: 7219: 7183: 7147: 7115: 7088: 5547: 4409: 4369: 4336: 4306: 4282: 3183: 2214: 629: 7829: 6939: 6868: 6854: 6834: 6816: 6788: 6277: 6257: 6159: 6080: 6056: 4077: 4063: 4035: 4020: 3996: 3982: 3962: 3111: 3049: 3025: 2761: 2515: 2439: 2220: 1920: 816: 666: 250:

In less than three quarters of an hour, you seem to have gone trough dozens of articles, asserting that they are beyond improving.

212: 7696:

to make Knowledge a safe place from expansion. Hit that fancrufty cruft fancruft with all of your fancruft cruftsmashing abilities.

6907: 5349: 5340: 5297: 4670:

comics. They've appeared in merchandise. Why can't you just let them be? You've already succeeded in getting rid of the other ones.

3953:

It'd be best to leave them and add proper sources. Even if the article manages to stay in the end, that should be a decent summary.

3736: 3585: 3570: 3556: 3542: 3511: 1875: 1625: 7926:

has left you several messages. It might be polite to reply to them. Also, I think it is about time that you archived this page. --

6434: 6164:

The one to Knowledge Review is number 10. I thought we weren't to link to that site or Wikitruth, or am I mistaken? Sincerely, --

5772:

Actually a good deal of shows have different characters, writers, and directors beyond the core characters in individual episodes (

5315: 5240: 5091:

It's that exact attitude which got an ArbCom case brought against TTN (twice) in the first place. I'd suggest not continuing it. —

3893: 3348: 2753: 2062: 2050: 1685: 1018: 1004: 538: 504: 473: 444: 396: 354: 299: 6021: 4427:

costumes, action figures, etc. If you'll give me some time I'll try to sort them out. In the mean time, please leave them alone.--

3670: 3629:

Please stop the revert war for now. Episode existing for a short time does not hurt anything. There is a discussion about this at

3611: 3255: 3225: 3202: 3145: 2557: 651: 567:

I would like to point out that WP:EPISODE is a guideline, (as well as WP:NOTE), not a Policy (disputed, no less). Also, the main

7257: 6680:

integrated characters added in, but otherwise it's probably the best course of action for now. You're going to have to convince

5235: 5100: 5020: 4986: 4956: 4929: 4902: 4862: 4839: 4819: 3706: 3547:

You have one source that asserts notability. The other one should not even be in the article. That is not enough for an article.

3117:

The members of the Heroes project are planning on working on them, so if you want to help try to figure it out, head over there.

1631: 6095: 5468: 5453: 4114: 3947: 3470: 2307:

not meet the requirements? Maybe I'll find out if I check the edit history. Were any of the other episodes redirected? Thanks. ~

7520: 7295: 3282: 2449: 2121: 1816: 822: 7726: 7506:

would restore those three articles once I got HTR 13 but this arbitration case seemed to throw a monkey wrench in those plans.

6385: 5767: 5303: 5085: 4889:

Even that, I would accept. It would give people a place to start. This issue is more or less the exact same thing we had with

3822: 3700: 3525: 3090:

Hi there! I'm probably not as familiar with the merging guide lines as you probably are but I was just wondering, are each of

7318: 4220: 4210: 4188: 2174: 1782: 1081: 746:

I would agree with Anthony that TTN's actions with regard to episode articles are misguided and harmful to the encyclopedia.

7685: 6317:

comment and the two or three comments preceding it on the recent RFAR. It will prove insightful to many uninvolved parties.

5388: 5308: 4823: 4154: 3243: 2814: 2208:

is there for - for people to expand it with the sources they can find. There's nothing wrong with taking it piece-by-piece.

2191: 2098: 7972: 7732:

But dude, without articles on the Teletubbies how the F%$ # will you ever be able to tell what's going on in that show? --

7252: 7063: 6658: 6620: 6579: 6541: 6503: 6462: 6424: 6381: 3384: 3311: 1513: 691: 573: 237: 6794: 6300: 4770:

Links to articles in other languages are lost when you decide to write a redirect to a list over an existing article like

4068:

I doubt he is really as much of a stalker as he is an "Afd patroller." He generally doesn't accomplish that much anyways.

2916:

For getting rid of all of these useless and uneeded episode guides and fancruft from this cite. Keep up the good work! :3

2578:. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, 802:

have, an environment that heavily favors solving disputes than force rather than reason. No offense to present company. --

163: 7785:

Seriously, leave TTN alone guys. Please refrain from "chatting" here and find something productive to do. BTW, ZeroGiga,

7697: 7381: 7366: 7350: 6241: 5498: 5411: 5380: 4883: 4765: 3443: 2881: 2300: 1905: 1434: 1374:! But that isn't my main problem, it's your lack of warning &/or discusion before removing/redirecting the articles! 1115: 865:

clean and nobody will notice. Maybe you can't fire volunteers, but you can certainly change the locks on the building. --

168: 4436: 3655: 2614: 1969: 1955: 1941: 1704: 1566:

That's really funny. Why do any of the rest of us bother with Knowledge channels of communication when there's YouTube?

7452: 7409: 5171: 5110: 4256: 2257: 938: 861:

sweeping all the dust in the building under every rug, you would be fired. It's not cleaning up, it's hoping the place

7515: 7500: 5931:

So you would defend them in an AfD, yet as you just explained, you do not find them to even be close to valid topics?

5345:

Perhaps I'm starting to lose perspective on some things.. Sorry I over-reacted, I don't know what I was thinking. --

2140: 1476: 1448:

Your usual edit warring and disrputive afd nominations continue unabated I see, so I hereby present you with a trout.

730:

this is good editing, which improves Knowledge and is extremely valuable and TNT is to be comended for his efforts. --

6686: 6166: 6119: 5953: 5920: 5883: 5796: 5702: 5673: 5644: 5615: 5539: 5371: 5129: 5057: 4890: 3810: 265:

Redirect per WP:N. This should only be brought back if information like director commentary and reviews can be found.

6923: 6882: 3795: 3685: 2541: 2013: 1980: 614: 283: 7859: 7825: 7803: 7762: 7267: 6969: 6849: 6811: 6768: 6272: 6236: 6187: 6140: 6107: 6075: 6037: 5490: 5282: 5216: 5080: 5052: 4109: 4058: 4015: 3977: 3942: 3761: 3267: 3044: 3006: 2987: 2982: 2959: 2420: 2400: 2371: 2093: 1995: 1900: 1857: 1530: 7407:

Thank you, TTN, for saving me from contributing to Knowledge. Thousands of other editors are also indebted to you.

5062: 3495: 3168: 3062:

Perhaps I should join in. I proposed Eggman's Vehicles and Eggman's Robots for deletion incase you're interested.

1609: 893:

Is there any reasonwhy you removed these templates from a bunch of Avatar: The Last Airbender episode talk pages?

7939: 7006: 6223: 5367:

Why do you spend so much time and effort on removing the content that made Knowledge popular in the first place?

5163: 3917: 3083: 2709: 2265: 2161: 2103: 1807:

It should be pretty obvious that the categories are empty besides a few articles, so they have no practical use.

151: 7097: 7935: 5613:

is many things to many people, not some limited thing for a limited number of people. Well put! Sincerely, --

3766: 3415: 3369: 2685: 2179: 2034: 1167: 834: 124: 7786: 6329: 6047:

Yeah, I would have to say that isn't me. I like how he bothered to try copying my little user page statement.

5271: 2634:

You can always mention that in the summary if this is not a trouble. At least one user, me, didn't get it. --

7670: 7042: 6773: 4617:" Which I just did. If you set your standards this high there's going to be nothing left but the 'biggies'.-- 4405: 4365: 4332: 4302: 4278: 4252: 4159: 3841: 3637: 3389: 2789: 2657: 1801: 1075: 602:

Do I understand you correctly that you stand by your "expect them to return to redirects sometime tomorrow"?

7717:

for those who don't think we need 200 million articles on every episode of Super Train or the Teletubbies).

7527: 6117:

I could be wrong, but I thought the Knowledge Review was a banned site that we can't link to? Sincerely, --

5039: 3898:

I'm honestly doing my best to obtain material to work on these. It's not easy. IS THERE NO SATISFYING YOU?

6821:

They're not notable enough to need mention, but the thing you would want to cite is the third paragraph of

6689:, check the tag there to see what I want to merge into the list. Thanks for all of your help in advance. 6445: 6395:, though. I suggest that you either find some kind of reception on the overall DVDs or merge it somewhere. 6325: 5789:, a totally different fictional universe. If nothing else, I am not worried if a handful of bloggers mock 5568:

songs used in the episode, or guest stars, or even the summary something these episode pages do just fine.

5494: 3800: 3419: 2800: 970: 928: 898: 3174:

So, how about pointing some relevant links related to that "long, drawn out process" out to me? Thanks, -

2620:

If the article is redirected, I remove any project templates. There shouldn't be any confusion over that.

7956: 7821: 7820:

In general, I think it's a shame, since he does do some good edits. But it's also a big relief, as well.

7758: 7263: 5999: 5446: 5096: 5016: 4982: 4952: 4925: 4898: 4893:. I had to twist your arm there just to get you to merge and we're having the same problem once again. — 4858: 4835: 4815: 3356: 2070: 1498: 811: 714: 647: 7001:

about merging the character articles into that list, and I've started to work on merging them. However,

3967:

Yeah, but aren't they covered and sourced in the main page? I tried looking, not very well I might add.

1457: 7328: 6356: 6296: 6017: 4780: 3780:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic

3642: 3423: 3098: 2272: 1651: 1022: 635: 38: 6433:

If it were you, would you put a {{notability|other|]}} tag on them, or have them speedy deleted under

7968: 7853: 7722: 7658: 7487:

I have EVERYTHING that can be sourced about Light. Let me look through the book and add information.

7286: 6903: 6350: 5592: 5558: 4544: 4225: 3751:? The afd was a no go, so we may as well get the job done ourselves. I hope that's alright with you. 3365: 2934: 2700:. Next time please at least make a discussion post and give sufficient time for people to respond -- 2697: 2486: 2009: 1965: 1951: 1937: 1765: 1472: 1400: 1346: 1329: 1310: 1225: 1194: 1156: 1126: 159: 144: 7644:

I was also under the impression that anyone could revert to the injunction-status of an article. --

7165: 4509:

them. If they had appeared in one little-known film that'd be another thing entirely, but its not.--

3335:

Thnx. What's the point of keeping pages seperate when all it does is take up alot of space? This is

2108:

Regarding your latest appearance on the Administrator's Noticeboard, it may be worth you re-reading

1887: 7883: 7711: 7013: 6652: 6614: 6573: 6535: 6497: 6456: 6418: 6375: 6214: 5359: 5011:

Or just get the base setup from the current list. I can get the production codes from elsewhere. —

4881: 4723: 4709: 4695: 4680: 4660: 4637: 4622: 4603: 4588: 4566: 4552: 4535: 4514: 4499: 4478: 4463: 4448: 4432: 4140: 3926: 3806: 3516:

Actually, you might just have a similar name to someone else, but either way, just do what I said.

2869: 2308: 2227: 1881: 695: 577: 227: 147: 97: 89: 84: 72: 3289:

would get piss off about my favorite articles being deleted and wipe out others out of spite if I

7871: 7701: 7385: 7370: 7354: 6727: 6694: 5573: 5415: 5384: 4977:

If you really find it that impossible to salvage, I would be willing to fill in the summaries. —

4172: 4150: 3903: 3091: 3084: 2290: 2126: 1890:

but a vandal changed it. With your permission, may I re-add it? Categories are sort of my thing.

1737: 1700: 1676:

template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

1047:

template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

966: 924: 894: 735: 201: 182: 67: 59: 4805: 4180:. I actually came across this after finding content about the Star Fox tank being added to the 2454:

Hi there. Regarding the ongoing TV episode merging and redirections, do you think you could use

7612: 7539: 7456: 7413: 6962: 5265: 5092: 5012: 4978: 4948: 4921: 4894: 4854: 4831: 4811: 4675:

work. And like I've said numerous times now, I will try to expand them once I have more time.--

3771: 2639: 2610: 2529: 2523: 2313: 2261: 1833:

to "no consensus". Regardless, I think the majority of the current sources are strong and very

1822: 1494: 1441:

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

710: 643: 6898:

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!!

6285: 3987:

They probably are covered, but having a strong list entry better helps the argument to merge.

3776:

Hello, TTN. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

2574:. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, 375:, which requires verifiable information to assert notability. This information must come from 7944: 7841:

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

7633: 7576: 7511: 7496: 6975:

I'm pretty sure the original was deleted per an AfD. If you can find it, just use db-repost.

6292: 6130:

Which link are you referencing? Anyway, TTN, that another phony or is that you on WikiQuote?

6013: 4776: 4168: 3818: 3395: 3104: 2735: 2705: 2599: 2458: 242: 136: 7901:

enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

7569: 4492: 4048:. Then again, how many others are on your tail? It's no use getting one and missing others. 3711:

I'd like you to show me where you got consensus for redirecting all those Pokemon articles.

1672:

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

1043:

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

417:

is disputed :) -- so it's pretty safe to say, I think, that it's certainly not set in stone.

260:

I really fail to see who is helped by this. Your boilerplate "reason" for the redirects is

7964: 7923: 7799: 7738: 7718: 7654: 7474: 7282: 6918: 6899: 6891: 6845: 6807: 6764: 6268: 6232: 6183: 6136: 6103: 6071: 6033: 6008:'s page on Wiktionary. I don't believe the person using your name there is you, but rather 5588: 5554: 5376: 5246: 5231: 5076: 5048: 4105: 4054: 4011: 3973: 3938: 3757: 3153: 3040: 3002: 2978: 2944: 2930: 2851: 2497: 2470: 2416: 2396: 2367: 2089: 2005: 1961: 1947: 1933: 1896: 1771: 1751: 1690: 1526: 1468: 1396: 1298: 1221: 1190: 1152: 1122: 844: 830: 768: 155: 129: 5605:

Doktor Wilhelm, you may an excellent point and really hit the core of the first pillar of

2248:

Hi TTN! I beg you to accept me as one of your disciples. I want to learn how to become a "

1516:

on the list of Saiyans article. You might wanna keep an eye on the article, if you're not

1205:

I'm talking about the main series. I don't generally buy spin-offs like Rivals or Riders.

8: 7595:

before anything else. The language is pretty explicit. Let me use this analogy: Somebody

7309: 7009: 6912: 6752: 6681: 6645: 6607: 6566: 6528: 6490: 6449: 6411: 6368: 6340: 5511: 5506: 5145: 4876: 4719: 4705: 4691: 4676: 4656: 4633: 4618: 4599: 4584: 4562: 4548: 4531: 4510: 4495: 4474: 4459: 4444: 4428: 4421: 4122: 3716: 3566: 3538: 3491: 3380: 2993: 2864: 2689: 2506:

That seems fine. R from merge really wouldn't have been appropriate with just redirects.

2151: 2117: 1983: 1605: 1541: 1382: 1377: 1357: 1352: 1267: 1262: 1137:

I would consider myself one. The only main game that I haven't played is the newest one.

870: 751: 707:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:TTN bulk soft-deleting episode pages

5425: 2280:

reason for complete deletion of this article, please mention it on the discussion page.

1189:

The latest one is sonic rivals 2, maybe if you spent more time looking it up you'd know.

1066:

I'll be as cyclopic as I can. What a PITA this kind of childishness is. Glad your back!

7960: 7931: 7918: 7790: 7776: 7743: 7681: 7365:

contribution to the article you are so ready to take in to your own hands, so to speak.

7262:

Hi. Great work you did on trimming the character sections of this article. Keep it up.

7024: 6825:. Giving pointless characters the same amount of coverage as main characters is silly. 6723: 6690: 6512:

Yeah, but if you end up merging it, the information needs to stay around for the GDFL.

6089: 5569: 5256: 4146: 3899: 3875: 3837: 3476: 3344: 3301: 3278: 3067: 2964: 2955: 2720: 2286: 2202: 2136: 2059: 2031: 1926: 1787: 1779: 1733: 1721: 1696: 1588: 1571: 1103: 1089: 1071: 785: 731: 663: 610: 534: 469: 440: 350: 279: 197: 178: 105: 7877: 7748: 7608: 7535: 7440: 7339:, and the like, which are either shows on the same network or similarly canceled yet 7247: 7233:

Alright, I've moved all of the recurring characters and returning characters over to

7214: 7178: 7142: 7110: 7083: 7058: 6955: 6798: 6307: 6305: 4576: 4398: 4358: 4325: 4295: 4271: 4245: 4002: 3790: 3221: 3179: 3164: 3141: 2785: 2635: 2606: 2537: 2234: 1712:

Are you also responsible for the deletion of the various character articles, such as

1084:

is back at it, wikistalking me and hence reverting some of the avatar articles. FYI.

384: 234: 6954:

and not sure if it needs merging or if it should just be redirected with no merge. -

6391:

Seeing as the topic is about DVDs, I don't see how FICT applies. It certainly fails

6065:. Either someone really has it in for you or you created it yourself, I don't know. 5245:

TTN, if you happen to find any more anime episode articles, could you please inform

4575:

Is there a rule that states a character must be 'iconic' for it to have an article?

192:

I have raised the issue regarding the policing and enforcement of the guidelines at

7909: 7693: 7629: 7572: 7507: 7492: 7443:

has every page of every issue available online, which led to someone expanding the

7002: 6945: 6839:

3bulletproof16 has apparently retired for now, could you delete and/or merge them?

6822: 6322: 5293: 5278: 5207: 4523: 4488: 2590: 2018: 1870: 1852: 1462: 1288: 965:

Are you going to redirect the talk pages to the season pages that are in progress?

119: 4263:

please. I know that you'd probably already do this; I'm just making sure. Thanks.

826: 624:. We get at least one or two TTN threads per day. I'm thinking we should create a 7865: 7794: 7733: 7604: 7559: 7534:. This is your final warning. If you persist in this manner you will be blocked. 7032: 6980: 6935: 6864: 6840: 6830: 6802: 6784: 6759: 6713: 6635: 6556: 6517: 6477: 6400: 6263: 6253: 6227: 6178: 6155: 6131: 6098: 6086: 6066: 6052: 6028: 6005: 5936: 5900: 5867: 5763: 5690: 5661: 5632: 5529: 5464: 5444: 5410:

Thank you for responding. I just wanted some insight into your personal views. -

5401: 5336: 5227: 5071: 5043: 4795: 4100: 4073: 4049: 4045: 4031: 4006: 3992: 3968: 3958: 3933: 3889: 3781: 3752: 3732: 3696: 3666: 3607: 3581: 3552: 3521: 3507: 3466: 3439: 3251: 3198: 3122: 3035: 3021: 2997: 2973: 2846: 2674: 2625: 2553: 2511: 2493: 2466: 2435: 2411: 2391: 2362: 2342: 2084: 2046: 1916: 1891: 1812: 1747: 1717: 1681: 1621: 1521: 1418: 1245: 1210: 1175: 1142: 1052: 984: 956: 913: 839: 806: 763: 500: 392: 295: 5190:

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the

4580: 3364:

I'd like to propose an unredirect of an article you redirected some months ago,

2863:

What has two thumbs and doesn't give a crap? Bob Kelso!<quote Dr. Kelso/: -->

2844:

Who has two thumbs and enjoys an encyclopedic focus on out-of-universe content?

2337:

to attempt to improve the episodes, so they can be included, if you would like.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

7645: 7592: 7531: 7427: 7305: 6440: 6364: 6336: 5584: 5346: 5323: 5312: 5223: 5140: 4671: 4648: 4387: 4217: 4207: 4185: 3866:

redirects in place before the injunction could go into effect. While I always

3857:

I strongly recommend you guys hold off on those articles; there is currently a

3849: 3827: 3742: 3712: 3634: 3562: 3534: 3487: 3376: 2826: 2811: 2693: 2249: 2243: 2147: 2113: 2109: 1974: 1823: 1797: 1713: 1601: 1453: 1370:

The way you are editing the articles, would be more suited to something like a

1061: 866: 747: 621: 140: 111: 7005:

reverted several of them for no concrete reasons. This character for instance

7952: 7945: 7927: 7847: 7772: 7677: 6894:

has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

6705: 5251: 4527: 4526:

is with Sid Haig about a different film and Spaulding is brought up. This is

3871: 3867: 3833: 3681: 3648: 3411: 3340: 3297: 3274: 3063: 2951: 2923: 2771:

Why did you merge all of the Pokemon pages. You have no authority to say so.

2749: 2716: 2665: 2132: 2056: 2028: 1673: 1666: 1655: 1647: 1633: 1567: 1409: 1099: 1085: 1067: 1044: 1037: 1026: 781: 606: 530: 465: 436: 380: 346: 275: 220: 47: 17: 6061:

On a hunch, I checked to see if your account was created on other wikis and

4206:

sometime tomorrow as I about to depart for the night class I am teaching). —

7444: 7340: 7238: 7205: 7169: 7133: 7101: 7074: 7049: 6739: 5484: 4391: 4351: 4318: 4288: 4264: 4238: 3785: 3652: 3592: 3458: 3217: 3175: 3160: 3137: 2533: 2230: 2210: 2187: 2171: 1834: 1597: 1593:

I would like to make you aware that the stringency you display in debates (

376: 110:

You're mentioned in the newest AN/I thread - well, actually its about you.

2027:. There is not a single subcategory there without the main article in it. 1509: 1490: 7905: 7423: 7324: 6859:

I'll just wait until we're ready to condense the lists before bothering.

6472:

probably just use the basic one. There is no need to always be specific.

6392: 6318: 5289: 5274: 5203: 3932:? It isn't necessary, the main article probably already has the sources. 3454: 3450: 2840: 2775:

You act as if it wasn't discussed for a long time and agreed upon by the

2586: 2361:. I'm thinking, would a merge tag be beneficial or is that a moot point? 1838: 1776:

Knowledge:Featured list removal candidates/List of Oh My Goddess episodes

1285: 372: 368: 114: 7653:

See the insightful message posted below about TTN's shocking actions...

4490: 2901: 1639: 1337: 1320: 1034:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of The Fairly OddParents characters

1010: 7336: 5438: 4203: 4181: 3727:

have to either look around the projects archives or ask them about it.

3435: 2965: 2862:

Would that be a Dr. Kelso from Scubs quote? ;) <quote Dr. Kelso: -->

2166:

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see

1677: 1048: 803: 6062: 5627:

minor piece of the media, so we shouldn't treat them any differently.

3576:

own. That's how you show that you're willing to productively discuss.

3320: 2004:. In the second, don't blame TTN. He didn't try to; it just happened. 2580:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop

2576:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence

1793: 1449: 6486:

No interest whatsoever. I might still work on them a little, though.

4317:

Will do. I'll start after I've came back from school today. Thanks.

2168:

Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration#The_Television_Episodes_Edit_Wars

662:

He seems to be blindly undoing stuff without discussion. undoing. --

7842: 7555: 7028: 6976: 6951: 6931: 6860: 6826: 6780: 6709: 6631: 6552: 6513: 6473: 6396: 6355:

Hi. There's a discussion at the Featured List candidates about the

6249: 6151: 6048: 5932: 5896: 5863: 5759: 5686: 5657: 5628: 5525: 5460: 5397: 5332: 4791: 4069: 4027: 3988: 3954: 3885: 3728: 3692: 3677: 3662: 3603: 3577: 3548: 3517: 3503: 3462: 3247: 3194: 3118: 3017: 2835: 2767: 2745: 2680: 2661: 2621: 2549: 2507: 2431: 2338: 2042: 1912: 1808: 1617: 1241: 1206: 1171: 1138: 980: 952: 909: 496: 388: 291: 3016:

That's fine. There is also the Earth page if that's still around.

2570:

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located

7345: 7332: 6410:

ends up being removed and redirected afterwards, that's okay. --

3631:

talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes#Dispute over episode article

1483: 605:

If so: do you have any suggestions how to best escalate this? --

4171:

page back from a redirect. I believe that its inclusion in the

6745: 4652: 3748: 2335:

Knowledge:WikiProject SpongeBob SquarePants/Episode Improvement

1650:, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for 1021:, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for 684:

consideration towards other editors wouldn't go astray either.

7323:

Hello, I am a rather new editor who joined to try to clean up

5158:

Notification of injunction relating to episodes and characters

5119: 3372:

for my rationale; I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

2821: 1166:"Which is?" Are you talking about the game? The game would be 6644:

Okay, cool. I'll start with the Degrassi character pages. --

6361:

Knowledge:Featured list candidates/One Tree Hill DVD releases

3434:, but they may be notable to other people. Think about it. -- 2806: 1371: 1237: 322:

the information. We're not talking BLP stuff here, after all.

7836: