User talk:Tovojolo/Archive/Archive Q3 2007

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just letting you know, the image nazis are on patrol and will probably tag this image for deletion explaining that you have to upload a way smaller version than this. They're cracking down and images I've been able to replace as small as possible I've done so. Part of the Fair Use crap is to make sure you have a small and "inferior" quality version of a copyrighted image. If you can't find a smaller image with the picture you want then you should probably revert it back to the one I previously had up there which was small enough. Cyberia23 05:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Cyberia23 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Given your earlier interest in the topic, I thought you might want to read the discussion about including Executive Producers in the list on films. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Film#Executive_Producers and particularly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Producers.2C_executive_producers.2C_et_al. Dawgknot 15:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tovojolo!

I saw you just added yourself to WP:DINO. Welcome to the team! :) Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but one editor saying s/he thinks its alright, does not mean Wikipedia permits. You have quite clearly copied IMDb (an unreliable source) word for word, with even unnecessary statements like "1 episode" and "Herself". Instead of continuing to do copyright violations, your time would be better spent look for proper references, and including her most important TV shows in a paragraph on her career. --UpDown 13:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I realise there was a misunderstanding earlier, regarding the photo on Arnold Schwarzenegger's page. When I looked at the edit diff, I thought you had removed the top photo, a public domain one. So I reverted. However, you hadn't. I should have looked more carefully at the diff before reverting. Apologies. --UpDown 15:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Geraldine Newman article is so brief there is no need to fork the filmography (also brief) into a separate article. Usually when things like that are moved into separate articles, it's because the main article is becoming unmanageable. I am not sure exactly what you're asking me to restore and will have to investigate it but you're going to have to wait because I'm very busy right now doing things other people have already asked me to do. Sarah 15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking is a blockable disruption. I suggest you approach UpDown with your concerns. If that does not work and if you want an administrator to take action on it, post your concerns at WP:ANI in the context of what it says at wikistalking. In that post, you need to provide diffs for each incident you consider to have been followed and harassed. Your post on my talk page lacked diffs for many of your statements. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

May I quote to you the following from WP:STALK "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them.". I draw you to particular sentences "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". This is what I have been doing with you. As it says above "logs are public for good reason". In addition, on some article we both edit regardless, mainly Joanna Lumley & Penelope Keith. My intention has never been to "harass" you, it has been to correct the errors you make. --UpDown 10:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a mistake, I admitted it and apologised. However, as the above shows we can all monitor each other. Thats the point of Wikipedia. You need to understand that. --UpDown 10:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of implementing the changes I suggested on the help desk, as it didn't look like it was done properly here. To avoid problems with parameters to #switch interfering with parameters to the archive templates, I created a subpage here. This is basically the format I understood you wanted (with a new archive every three months instead of every month). If it isn't, just revert my changes. I think this will work, but we'll have to wait for the next archival run to find out. --Pekaje 12:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If UpDown continues to follow you around Wikipedia, please do not try to handle the matter yourself. Many of your replies seem to antagonize the situation rather than work towards resolving this ongoing conflict. I posted a request for UpDown to stop following you around Wikipedia. Should the matter continue, please post at WP:ANI using diffs. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

If you look at my Talk Page History, you will see that Shadowbot3 archived my Talk Page to :

User talk:Tovojolo/Archive/Archive Q2 2024

The only trouble is - Where is that page ?

I can't find it.

Please help.

Tovojolo 09:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the bot screwed up (and it suspiciously stopped archiving right at that page). Have asked on the bot talk page. --Pekaje 10:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to cut down section 2 and section 6 of the plot ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be more appropriate at WP:IFD, and then take the category to WP:CFD --lucid 14:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

PLease see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cast members in Casino Royale (1967) thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tovojolo! I, and other users, have noticed that Shadowbot3 would cease archiving after it tried to archive your page. I've updated the directive in the source for your page to hardcode the archive target, instead of transcluding it. Please keep in mind that the bot does not transclude subpages and only substitutes a limited number of magic words. If you have any questions, please contact me. Shadow1 (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have decided not to report my suspicions that you are a sockpuppet of User:Vorrock (or rather he's a sockpuppet of you), although this diff does prove it. The reason is that while you are clearly the same person how have not as yet used the accounts in a manner which would be clearly unacceptable (like vote-rigging, or avoiding 3RR). However, I would kindly remind you to be very careful in the future, for I deal feel that you should not be running two accounts, for basically the same purpose - an account which looks like its only there to insert the photorequest image. Running two accounts is allowed, if they never collide. Well these have collided, on Penelope Keith, and about the same issue. This is unacceptable, especially bearing in your previous sockpuppet. You are a good editor who can make good contributions, so it would be shame if you ran another sockpuppet.--UpDown 17:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contribution to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. We have discussed what type of article this is in the past and decided that it is an article on the event and not on the person. This is why, for example, there are no bio categories. I have therefore removed the infobox which is designed for bio articles. If you disagree, please raise the question on the talk page so that a consensus may be reached. TerriersFan 09:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, for the first time, our collaboration of the fortnight has failed. In my opinion Casino Royale isn't up to GA quality. Your contributions are greatly valued. The main problem is a lack of references in Production section. Thanks. SpecialWindler talk (offline) 10:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No I merged it back for a reason. Casino Royale is different because it has such an extensive notable cast its not like other films where it is only like taxi driver... arnold peddabump for example in the minor minor cast that doesn't mean anything. All the cast included should remain in this article. I have spent time formatting it too ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea where you got the idea cast must only include the strictly main cast. please see Hot Fuzz which passed the GA with flying colors ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Spalding also wanted a strong merge back. There shouldn't be a problem with it the way it is now. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah but as we all know Casino Royale of 67 is unique and certainly much different from the Bond films anyway. The plot is a clear reflection of this and looks nothing like the others. Great work you've done really well on but there are still referencing problems particularly in the production section. If these can be fixed and filled out it should be up to GA. All the best and hey doesnt it feel wikipedia is up to the next level now we have 2,000,000!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you adding some sources, well done! It's looking alot better, though I still think the plot section is too long. But use your discrestion. SpecialWindler talk (currently offline) 10:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)