User talk:TenPoundHammer

Template:Archive box collapsible NEW MESSAGES GO TO THE BOTTOM.

Click here to leave me a message.

PROD tag

Hi TPH. I don't know what happened with A Matter of Time (Mike Posner album), but I have removed the prod tag. It was legitimately removed, so shouldn't have been readded, although it looks like there was a bit of crazyness in the edit history. It should probably be taken to AfD if you still think it should be deleted - but I'm sure you already know that as it looked like you may have started to do it already :) The same with One Foot Out the Door, although it wasn't you that readded the tag. Dana boomer (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, it looks like everything is good now, with both articles being nominated for deletion. Dana boomer (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

House episodes

Have you discussed removing articles on House episodes? Cresix (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have all the episodes on my watchlist and have removed all unsourced trivia (except for a few references to music in some episodes). I'm in the process of reading the page you linked. I disagree with what you are doing, although you may very well be editing within Wikipedia policies. A bit of discussion would have been the courteous thing to do. Cresix (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, some of the articles do have sourced information that is not part of the plot summary. I trust you will be able to exercise a bit of restraint on those articles. Cresix (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm giving this some consideration. One point that I would ask you to consider is that articles pertaining to unrelated TV shows that are loaded with trivia and "personal essays" have no bearing on articles about other TV shows. I've made my opinion clear, so I'll not belabor this point. Am I to assume that this self-appointed mission you're on will be applied to every TV episode on every TV show that you encounter (excepting those that have a bit of sourcing)? Or is it just certain TV episodes that you target? And for those that remain after your wide path of deletion is complete, will the plot summaries be removed because they have not sourcing? Cresix (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have never said otherwise about "precedent". As I said, you may very well be editing within Wikipedia policies, although you approach (in my opinion) leaves something a lot to be desired. You failed to answer even one of my questions above. That's your choice, of course. But it would be the courteous thing to do. Cresix (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cresix here - I think the least you could have done is announce your plans to wholesale remove/redirect so many articles before doing so. This kind of unilateral action is rude and inconsiderate to other editors, and is so massive that there should have been discussion. This isn't a one-man show - it's a collaborative environment, and there are no hard and fast rules here that required you to take such drastic action without even attempting to get consensus. Tvoz/talk 06:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And regarding the guideline, did you read the section WP:EPISODE#Dealing with problem articles? Did you tag articles with the notability tag first and allow for discussion by the editors who worked on the articles? I see nothing in WP:EPISODE that requires action in the way that the policy WP:BLP does, for example. So I think you've acted in a rash and rather discourteous manner here and should revert your redirects and instead post your objections in a way that engenders discussion, and perhaps improvement, of these articles which represent a great deal of work by many editors. Tvoz/talk 06:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing, I contributed heavily to those pages. they were previously marked for citation and sources, I provided sources to most of the info on those episode pages. Like the above editors said, this is a collaborative process.--Theo10011 (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Collaborative process"? "Discussion"? Obviously not ever given a moment's thought. Not even considered important. Cresix (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost all of the CSI-series episodes had been tagged for notability and/or sources for as far back as 2007 and 2008, so I saw no problem there. The House episodes may have a couple sources here and there, but most of them are unreliable sources like TV.com or IMDb. What I want to know is what we gain from keeping unsourced articles consisting entirely of plot summary and trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the answer to "what do we have to gain", your tactic here has been entirely inappropriate. Wikipedia in general certainly doesn't have anything to gain by such behavior. You don't seem to have understood that blindly following a guideline and ignoring everything and everyone else is not the way things are done here. Considering how long you have been around, I'm more than a little surprised at your behavior. Regardless of how these disputes turn out, I hope the one good thing to come out of this is that you have learned something about common courtesy and the process of discussion on Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

First, the issue is the lack of sources than the quality of sources, Tv.com has been used as a source for many TV related articles,if you're issue is with the sources then you could have tagged them instead of deleting everything. Those sources are for everything from Medical facts to songs used in an episode, as trivial as you may consider that, the episode or the show itself would also be deemed trivial in that light. Your issue seems to be with the nature of the pages itself, why don't you start with the countless pages on Anime and games first, they are almost on the same level of notability. All I know is that a large number of editors contributed to it over a period of years, you can't undo all that in one instant. If your issue is with the notability of these episode pages itself then please take it up at the appropriate place.--Theo10011 (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but I still think that other editors can cite other "reliable" sources for some of the info on those pages, whether we should have that chance or not is what the above discussion is about.--Theo10011 (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Further House episodes Discussion

I'm not here to ask about why, or even to oppose you in this matter. In fact, going off of what I've seen everywhere else (such as Monk and Psych), I have to agree with you. However, I don't really agree with Wikipedia's policy on this. Is there somewhere this can/is being discussed? Thank you. Kevinbrogers (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Lake Lobake National Park

Hi. In future if you come across a duplicate article please have the sense to redirect/merge one into the other. AFD is for encyclopedic subjects and content which you think are unencylopedic and want deleted. If you truly had wanted this national park article deleted then I wouldn't have removed the AFD tag but as far as I could see it was a redirect case. Anyway, glad you came across it as we've expanded it. Dr. Blofeld 08:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Reason not supplied

You have twice removed links from Sadism and masochism in fiction, which is on my watch list, with an edit summary similar to Removing backlinks to Love Hurts (House) because ""; using TW. Could you make sure to give a reason other than "" please? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss on talk pages

I won't template you, but I'll kindly ask you to discuss changes on article talk pages rather than repeatedly reverting, especially when there is a dispute. Others have pointed out that the guideline you are using does not require you to make all the wholesale removals that you are making in article related to the House TV series immediately. There is some room for discussion. I realize that discussing differences of opinion is not your typical manner of editing and that you don't consider others' opinions as important as yours, but there are policies involved here, including WP:CON, a policy that takes precedence over any guidelines that you have used to justify your massive deletions. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Triggering a tag in an edit summary does not confirm a policy violation. It sometimes occur with non-vandalized edits, as is the case here. Cresix (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss your concerns on article talk pages so that others can see, not my talk page. There are now numerous editors in this dispute. Cresix (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you didn't see my message immediately above. Please discuss your concerns on article talk pages so that others can see, not my talk page. There are now numerous editors in this dispute. Cresix (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop

In the last few minutes, I count multiple abuses of rollback and Twinkle in content disputes. Please don't edit war to redirect an article. Discuss it on the talk page. Keep it up and you'll lose rollback and Twinkle and possibly end up blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually had the screen open to revoke your rollback privileges because of this. Really should have pressed the button. The only thing- and I mean the only thing that stopped me was looking here and seeing HJ didn't do it. The way you used Twinkle to remove the backlinks made life very, very difficult for anyone to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle and actually revert you, due to the massive number of pages you affected. This is a classic example of doing something that is perhaps right, but doing it the wrong- bull in a china shop- way. Courcelles 18:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

HOUSE

why are you deleting all the House articles? people have already told you to stop! you have to restore all the links to House episode articles and the articles themselves. SuperJew (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing practice

It is absolutely unacceptable to restore disputed redirects by characterizing the actions as minor edits, using essentially empty edit summaries suggesting you are reverting vandalism or otherwise nonconstructive edits. It will, for many editors, operate to call your own good faith into question. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)