User talk:Otto4711

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Reversion of special characters

Why when I edit articles do special characters (arrows, accented characters) sometimes suddenly spontaneously turn into question marks? See for example Treasure Hunters (TV series) in which a minor edit by me nowhere near any of them caused every arrow and accented character on the page to mutate. Otto4711 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's most likely the browser you're using, or the character encoding that your browser is using at the moment. Have you tried changing the encoding to Unicode UTF-8? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 21:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Playing card symbols

Trying to insert card suit symbols into The Cincinnati Kid and it's not working. I used the notation in the article Yoshio Nakano as my guide and I thought I did it right, but apparently not. Otto4711 02:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you need the semicolons: ♣ ♥ ♦ ♠ (or, ♣ ♥ ♦ ♠). =D Luna Santin 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 7 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Willi Ninja, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Heap

Good comics history, man! Kudos on your edits here! -- Tenebrae 04:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Otto4711-

1. Thanks for the work on Male prostitution in the arts.
2. I noticed that you removed comments on a few films... why?
3. Please remember to use edit summaries.

Thanks and keep up the good work- NYArtsnWords 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superhero television programs

One problem with your freshly created category is that some eligible items under the DC Comics and Marvel Comics subcategories are not about superheroes. MadTV (based on the DC Comics publication Mad) is not a superhero program. Men in Black (from a company owned by Marvel Comics) is not a superhero program. Doczilla 08:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile!

Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Wel done on your recent edits to the Wicked article - I think there's still a lot to be done though!-- Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 13:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comment of the day (uhh, my awards review process takes a week, see)

donkeylol

"Because only a jackass..." aaaaaahhhahahahaahaha you slayed me, Otto. It's a good thing I wasn't sipping my coffee when I read that. — coelacan talk — 06:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death By Gluten Afd

Death By Google - what a classic, by far the best Afd quote I have ever seen!! Keep it up ;-) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFDs

Hey Otto4711 - We sometimes disagree on the CFDs but I wanted to say I appreciate you persistently making relevant points on the current LGBT-related CFDs. I'm really going to stay out of it as much as possible because I feel, strongly, that the CFDs are getting bogged down with a lot of people making nominations to make a point, or to implement their personal philosophies about the significance of particular identities. Nevertheless, even though I'm feeling frustrated with wikipedia process right now, I had resolved previously to give props to people when I could. Best, lquilter 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation.

Hello, I saw your edits to Gay USA and would like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies - we'd love to have you on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on, you just voted on my AfD, you know you want to join... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We'd love to have your participation :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's Time For Regis!

Otto, aside from Be Bold, there are stips to not remove the AfD banner from the page. Should I just redirect and nuke the AfD, or let it go? --Dennisthe2 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] grab the rope!

		The XfD Rescue Barnstar
		Hi Otto. =) Your very competent argumentation saved Category:Vegetarians from deletion. Thanks for being a CfD "first responder". — coelacan talk — 05:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are not a vandal.

Otto4711, you didn't vandalize at all; I never said you did. All I said in my summaries was that you didn't discuss the change on the talk pages first. I was always taught that major changes should be discussed first. If you thought that I called you a vandal, I'm sorry. You are not a vandal. Acalamari 16:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded with: Listen, I'm sorry if I've been incivil. It wasn't my intention. I hope in the future we can work peacefully. I made a mess of the situation that just happened. I am sorry.

I should also add: I should have been more specific. I was foolish in making that error. Acalamari 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile!

Here's some Penguins for you! Penguins somehow in their own strange way promote WikiLove and hopefully these Penguins have made your day seem even better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Crested Penguin 05:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well

That RFA was surprisingly negative, even spiteful at times, and containing numerous WP:KETTLEs. Sorry for putting you through that, it was entirely not what I suspected. Here's one for not giving up.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		>Radiant< 08:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are decimating Wikipedia

Hello...I'd just like to let you know that you are decimating Wikipedia by nominating any and all categories that you can find for deletion. You and 2-3 people end up deleting hundreds of categories that many people have worked on for a long time, not in the least limited to many of the TV show and family categories. I'd advise you to please end your deletion-mania. --172.164.242.170 13:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor's barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I, Eyrian, am happy to present you with this editor's barnstar, for your tireless excellent work in trimming the trivial fat. --Eyrian 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TPIR pricing games

What I was hoping to accomplish is to get people actually working towards something instead of just talking. AfD can have that effect: it's a debate, everyone debates, but often people are overly hesitant to take action. I agree, there was some discussion of a retired vs. non-retired solution but that didn't have consensus either, clearly. Hopefully if a discussion can be had where the point is how best to organize the articles, then that can be properly addressed. But none of the hoping for merging will go anywhere if no one actually puts together the more general articles. IMO, that can be done, at first, without redirecting the individual game articles. (BTW, I don't, myself, think the retired vs. non-retired idea is the best. Why wouldn't a simple break-up alphabetically be the best idea? Eg List of The Price is Right pricing games (A-H), et cetera.) Mangojuice^talk 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

One thought: some of the games seem to have changed over time, whereas others have "retired version" and "unretired version"s. To me, that distinction seems a little arbitrary. So there might be some overlap among the lists. Good luck. Mangojuice^talk 20:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Mangojuice is getting confused over Bullseye and Balance Game...there are actually two pricing games with each of these titles, none of which have anything to do with one another.

By the way, nice work combining all the retired games into one page. I think it looks good. -TPIRFanSteve 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chasing down CFDs

Thanks for listing so many connected categories after I nominated the Sean Connery one. I'm impressed with your thoroughness - you nominated all of the ones that I thought were suspect. --GargoyleMT 00:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Hi Otto, I have been seeing some of your contributions of late and on digging a little deeper I find that you are not an admin nor apparently has your nomination ever been raised, despite your ample record. So: would you be interested in a nomination? Please feel free to email me. (Btw, you may wish to archive your talk page - getting a bit long...) Eusebeus 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First, you might want to consider archiving your talk page.

• My earnest and sincere apologies; I should have been more diligent in reviewing the above before bringing it up. I can see why you don't want to go through that shit again. The level of abuse you received was totally ridiculous and disheartening. Moreover, based on what I saw, you were essentially sandbagged by a less-than-stellar cast of characters. Eusebeus 12:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  PS - I should archive my talk page, but as I'm involved in an outstanding RfC and the evidence was placed on my page, I don't want to bury it in an archive until the matter is resolved).

[edit] feel free to move this to userspace...

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I, VanTucky, award you, Otto4711, this Deletionist's Barnstar for your fine work in removing listcruft and original research from the Film noir article. VanTucky (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CfD barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		is hereby awarded to Oto4711 for diligence above and beyond the call of duty in finding instances of overcategorization and nominating them for deletion with well-reasoned and appropriately-referenced arguments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I love the...

Thank you so much for taking care of the I love the... mergers. I planned on doing that eventually but don't have a lot of time. You're a wikisaint. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For making me laugh by creating Cowsay as a redirect to Moo with the edit summary created redirect to answer the question "what's a cowsay?" BencherliteTalk 23:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I never thought I'd see the day...

...that you and I were on the same side of an argument. Where are these intellectuals when the subject is "Running jokes in Friends"? Best wishes Mandsford 00:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

if you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1949-1950 United States network television schedule (weekday), I just agreed with both of you. The world may indeed be changing. DGG (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you both sound so surprised. Even a blind pig finds the occasional truffle so of course y'all are going to get an AFD right eventually.  ;-) Otto4711 03:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Index of deleted categories ...

You may find this useful at some point ... User:ProveIt/index. Feel free to add stuff you think is appropriate... It came out of a discussion I had with Sam at the last meetup. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

-- Rjd0060 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how else to explain this, and rather not take up any more space at ANI. I frequently tag trivia sections. I think they need to be incorporated into their articles, not having sections dedicated to trivia. I saw what was going on there, reverts by the both of you. I don't agree with the fact that the other user deleted the content, as I know the TRIVIA guidelines say not to do that. I also know about other polices like 3RR, which you were a couple hours away from violating. After reading your response to the 3RR warning, it appeared as if you were blatantly disregarding the policy. I then tagged the section, which you then removed the tag. That is a revert of context. I'd rather not get into the content dispute itself, however I saw a problem with the both of you, and made the appropriate report, to prevent further disruption of the Wiki. The removal of the section all together was not an act of vandalism. It was just part of a content dispute. Sorry if I gave you the impression that you were the only one doing anything wrong here, as that is not a correct representation of what I believe. The reason I did not involve the other user in the report is solely because of the frequency of the reverts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This whole thing is ridiculous. I do see your point now, about not reporting the other user. I realize that that user was making some disruptive edits as well, and I think that the only reason this became such a big deal is because I did single you out. However, you should be able to agree with me that because you were reverting the other edits, and that user was reverting your edits, both because you disagreed with each other, is an edit war. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to pursue this any further. I hope you are assuming the assumption of good faith by my report, even though it appears to be one-sided. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the trouble, and hope you understand the original motive for the report. [1] - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Judy Garland Show on hold

Hey, the article is on hold. Please see the talkpage for further details. Regards, FamicomJL (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, the article has passed. See the talk page for details. Regards, FamicomJL (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this is for if you want to show off your work on the page. Feel free to display this userbox anywhere on your userpage, {{User Good Article|The Judy Garland Show}} Regards! FamicomJL (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relocated comment

Otto4711 I am trying to figure out how to communicate with you regarding your reporting me to spam and the deletion of my edits. Please see the facts I list are valid and I have links to the source. As well the usage of the word "Gay" is used on my page in description of movies and is appropriate for the subject Ryan Idol. Not all information listed is flattering to myself nor should the facts be hidden from the reader to make a image appear something he or it is not. These are Gay Movies he is in and his name is known in the gay adult movies not heterosexual. Please contact me at charles@charlespeyton.com or through the wikipedia site. I am sorry if this is no the proper way to get you a message but I have tried many other ways and have received no communication back. thanks charlespeyton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlespeyton (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Priceless!

your addition of material to Friend of Dorothy gave my partner and me a wonderful laugh this evening. Thanks for such good editing! Jeffpw (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI, Judy Garland as gay icon DYK nom

Hi. I've nominated Judy Garland as gay icon, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on December 26, where you can improve it if you see fit. Benjiboi 04:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Update. Wow! It looks like it might be the lead DYK on the next update. Benjiboi 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Otto4711 (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 2 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Judy Garland as gay icon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 01:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bride of Frankenstein - is it time?

First of all, congratulations on your excellent work so far on the article. I'm rather impressed. I was wondering if you think that it might be time to give it the FAC push? If not, is there anything resource or assistance-wise that WP:FILMS can do to be of additional help? Many thanks and keep up the good work, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I wasn't planning on doing any major additional work on the article but I would absolutely support going for FA. To get it there I think it needs a bit more on the production, especially an expansion of Kenneth Strickfaden's role and perhaps more about the visual effects, along with an expansion of the critical and popular response section to trace the growth of the film's reputation. Otto4711 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Judy Garland

Hi Otto, Never be afraid of being accused of ownership issues, especially if you can back up your viewpoint. I wouldn't worry about it - just do what you think best. The filmograpy thing - yes, I see your point. I'm in the middle of commenting at FAC. I think it could be renamed to make it clearer, but I did make that change initially so that it would appear in the TOC and be easier to find. That seems to be the norm, and is supported by project guidelines, and I was also thinking that if someone as experienced as Meltygirl was confused by it, the average casual visitor would miss it completely. I think renaming the section, or having a short (one or two sentence) intro to explain it, would be much better than putting it into the "see also" section. I think it tends to get overlooked there. I saw this as a quick fix, but I agree that it's not exactly right. What do you think? Really good article, by the way, and well worth giving an push to get it to FA status. If you've been the main contributor, I have to say you've done a great job. Rossrs (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dante's Cove

Please don't be discouraged: GA is a bouncing around kind of process. That is how an individual list and delist process reaches consensus. However, if you really care about Dante's Cove, please keep it on your watchlist: you would then have seen the GAR nomination. Geometry guy 00:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Take the delisting in the right spirit. Now that the short-comings of the article are pointed out, the delisting is an opportunity for the editors to improve it more, and one day reach FA status. Good luck improving the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] time to see if consensus has changed?

Hi Otto -- I was looking at the Time Magazine Person of the Year category. I missed your effort to CFD / delete it in the summer, but there's a template now -- was there one when you did that CFD initially? If not, that might make a difference; I still think that it's a ridiculous category. At any rate, what do you think is a reasonable time period to pass before checking to see if consensus has shifted? One doesn't want to waste anybody's time. A year? More? Less? --Lquilter (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't planning on nominating it again any time soon but would support a deletion nomination if made. Otto4711 (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Lair and Dante's Cove.

Besides the apearance of both Colin and Thom on Dante's Cove we have more evidences that both happen at the same universe.

1. Both series take place on a town on a island

2. On The Lair 102 Colin tells Frankie that they have been expelled by the Avatar. Avatar is the same term used to refer to some Tresum witches.

3. The drug "Saint" is shown in both series.

4. On Dante's Cove 303 Adam tells Grace that they can obtain the Star Flower (Tresum name for Saint) at The Lair. This "The Lair" is the same sex club where Colin and Thom make their cameos. This last item can be checked if you watch Dante's Cove 303 Clip 2 at http://www.heretv.com/AVideoPage.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.111.246 (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• There has been no explicit statement that the two shows take place in the same fictional universe. The Lair was originally planned as a spin-off from DC but those plans were scrapped. Absent a statement in a reliable source that the two shows are in the same universe, assuming that they are is original research. Otto4711 (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Lair vs Dylan Vox inconsistency inside wikipedia

If you claim that setting The Lair in the same universe of Dante's Cove is OR I suggest you edit the first paragraph at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lair#Connections_to_Dante.27s_Cove

where it is stated that they DO share the same universe. Nevertheless, at teh end of that very section a doubt is raised about this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.111.246 (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I mis-typed here. Yes, the two shows do take place in the same fictional universe. That does not mean that the two Colins are intended to be the same character. There has been nothing on Dante's Cove that indicates that the Colin there is a vampire (or for that matter that Thom there was a vampire; I certainly didn't see any fangs). And there's been no specific mention of DC by name on The Lair. If you pay attention to the production history, you would know that initially TL was planned as a direct spin-off of DC and was going to be called Dante's Lair, but that idea was scrapped. So, again, in the absence of a reliable source stating that the two characters are the same, speculation that they are the same is original research. Otto4711 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] award-winner template

Hi Otto -- Working with awards and award-winners and CFDs -- and now TFDs! -- all this time it occurred to me that perhaps the best solution is a single compressed template. So, I drafted Template:Awardwinners; your thoughts would be appreciated. Maybe it'll work, maybe not, but I thought I'd at least ping some other folks involved in award-winner discussions for their opinions and thoughts. --Lquilter (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Only six?

I've started a new thread to generate discussion to revisit the "six movies" guideline on the Porn wikiproject, here. Your insight would be appreciated as I'm aware you've also seen some of the problems this may have caused. Benjiboi 23:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transamerican Love Story

Thanks for all your excellent work on this article! For additional references, you can find a list of published reviews and articles on the series here. Jokestress (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Question

In those wresling alumni pages that were deleted it included the current JCW roster. Everyother one was an alumni page, so I'm wondering why the roster was included in the set and got deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juggalobrink (talk • contribs) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you decide to be rude and not even notify WP:PW that you were nominating the articles for deletion? I will look into recreating them (first by seeing if categories fall under deletion review, if not then just manually recreate them). Why not go ahead and delete every other alumni category? Why not delete sports team categories? There was zero reason to delete the major ones (I agree about deleting ones for minor indy feds since they usually don't have wrestlers under contract), and you didn't even have the deceny or common sense to notify the wrestling Wikiproject about nominating them. TJ Spyke 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• The categories were nominated on March 4. Today is March 18. That's two weeks. In two weeks, not a single person from the project looked at any of those categories even once? Not one member of the project had even a single one of those categories on a watchlist? Where's the common sense in that? And I would strongly urge you not to attempt to thwart consensus by manually recreating the categories. First, they will be speedily deleted as recreated content and second such an action would likely be considered vandalism and disruption of the project. Otto4711 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring 2008! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn 2008!

[edit] shortcut

FYI, I just created a shortcut to WP:OC#PERF. - Neier (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 31 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fighting Tommy Riley, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008

Hi there! I was in the middle of a GA nomination review for this article and had left clear instructions for the editors, which they seem to have been implementing. I've been out of town for the past week for Spring Break and haven't had a chance to check up on it - imagine my surprise to see it had been failed! Did you notice it had an ongoing review? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I did notice that it had an ongoing review. It should not have, though, because it fails one of the quick-fail criteria. It's about an ongoing event with a definite endpoint and as such cannot be a Good Article at this time. After Election Day 2008 it can be renominated but until then it's ineligible. Otto4711 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Party Monster

Hi there! Let's not accuse people of vandalism when they were just taking out a ludicruously disruptive photo! Let's not let that happen again. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.219.82 (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nesting project banners

{{helpme}} Trying to set it up so that the default is to hide the project banners on Talk:Barry Winchell to tidy up the page a bit. Not sure what I'm missing. Otto4711 (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. The required "nested=" parameter is "yes" rather than "y". Best, Gr1st (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

on GA status for Boys in the Sand. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Otto4711 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alias edits

Hi. That the same happened in Lost, Prison Break, Jericho, Once Were Warriors characters to name some. Check for example here and here. Of course they were more discussions but I can't find them right now. If a character is "dead" or "alive" depends on which episode you are watching. In Infoboxes we want to give a general overview of the character. I checked more 100 infoboxes in the last two days and I strongly believe that Alias was the last with the status still around. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Categories on user page

Hi, Sorry I forgot to remove them when I was testing on that page. Thanks for letting me know. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cedar Hill Cemetary CFD

I had typed the following to the close here, but I'd probably get yarked at for being disruptive and reminded that WP isn't a soapbox. Just needed to vent.

Sorry, Otto, but you lose. It's been proven that consensus (which we all know too many people define as "vote-counting") trumps EVERYTHING. There is no policy, guideline, or decree that you can use in their argument if the majority of people don't agree with you. A close against consensus, even if backed up by policy (even one of the five pillars), will get overturned at DRV by a chorus of "overturn, there was no consensus to delete". It doesn't matter if the subject of the articles here aren't notable for being in a certain cemetery or even if it hasn't been verified, a majority of keepers rules the day. --Kbdank71 14:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but you are flat-out wrong. Consensus does not and can not trump policy. A hundred people clamoring in favor of an article or category that fails a policy should not prevail over the policy violation and too many administrators either fail or refuse to recognize this. Not a single person refuted a single argument that I made and closes are supposed to be about the strength of the arguments, not how many people pop in with "me too" comments. It again saddens me that a close has been influenced by the closing admin's fear of being overturned at DRV and that sadness is matched by the knowledge that a DRV close would overturn a policy-based deletion because of those same people flocking there and squawking "me too" again. Otto4711 (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "...factual correctness"

If you're going to revert an edit, please have a reason that applies. There are many reasons you might want to undo that edit—it might even be something as simple as that you thought the prior version flowed better (though it didn't), but saying that you "restored information to factual correctness" when my change was purely stylistic, with no changes whatever to the facts which were all retained, is pretextual. Your second reversion is understandable but incorrect. I looked at the source material, and added more facts from the same page of Dyer's book, so I'd appreciate it if you'd revert yourself on that one. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Your change was not purely stylistic. Your revision placed the year of Celebrity Billiards at 1967 and sourced it to this source. The source does not say that the show debuted in 1967. You also removed the reference to Hustles the Pros debuting in 1967 despite there being a source confirming it. That is what I mean by factual correctness. If you have a source that verifies that Celebrity Billiards debuted in 1967 then please add it, otherwise don't change the dates and incorrectly source them. Otto4711 (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article on The Hustler

I had a question/suggestion about The Hustler (film) and wanted to check with you because you're a primary editor and added the section in question.

It's been my general experience with articles on works of fiction that, while "Wikipedia contains spoilers", major plot twists are documented in the plot section but not in the lead (so, e.g., a reader can use the synopsis to help understand a movie plot as it's unfolding), and it seems to me that removing the last sentence of the first paragraph would improve the article without eliminating information. Your opinion? -- Chrylis (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I still don't think it was a problem as written but considering the level of anger a previous editor expressed about it, I have reworded the last sentence to read "...after paying a terrible personal price." That conceals the plot point of Sarah's death while still imparting that Eddie's victory came at a cost. Otto4711 (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I believe that the new wording is a very good balance between vagueness and revealing too much. After all, a reader can always scroll down to read the whole synopsis but can't unread the spoiler. (I actually preferred having the spoiler warning for non-plot sections, but it seems consensus went the other way.) Thanks for the update. Chrylis (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question at CfD

Not sure if you go back and check CfDs for questions, but I've asked you one here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

You seem to have omitted :Category: from your drv on the alumni categories so everything is red-linked, confusing the issue. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• There is no Category:High School alumni (United States). Otto4711 (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• OK - I see you're using the heading from the cfd, which I'm sure is the way to go. To judge from the first respondent, it can be thought that the categories have been deleted (as all links are red) and so he has said 'restore'. Or perhaps he means restore the deletion. Anyway, there should be a blue link somewhere, for clarity. (Eg Category:People by high school in the United States which was tagged.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Circuitcd.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Circuitcd.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Defying Gravity (film)

You were rude in reverting me while I was working on this plot summary that was filled with runon sentences. I wonder, though, if in commenting on the story as you say one might be guilty of WP:OR. Please have the courtesy to let me finish.--River (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• WP:OR appears to be another policy that you don't quite grasp. It is not OR to include a brief (emphasis on "brief") plot summary in an article, because the film itself serves as the source. So please, you finish messing up the article and then I'll clean it up for you. Otto4711 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that your condescending and patronizing manner is counterproductive.--River (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have finished copyediting the plot summary, and I am grateful to you for reminding me of the need for brevity. I see that you are well-qualified as an editor to craft articles on this website. I have seen the film many times, and I was carried away with it to the point that I wanted to share more of its riches with the world. I hope that my contributions have improved the article. It is a labour of love.--River (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Judy Garland

Hello Otto

First I want to congratulate you on what you have done for the Judy Garland article- it is fantastic that is now a FA status. It is a very informative article and is in my opinion one of the best biographies on Wikipedia. Although, as discussed before I feel that her ancestry is an interesting element but agree not really 'important' to her career or achievements. However I do believe that all of us are influenced by our ancestry and culture that we are raised in or idnetify with through family connections and anthropologists tend to agree that our genetic make-up does infulence many things including how we look, how we act, our health etc. and although Garland certainly was an American and by accounts very patriotic one, she did often mention her Irish roots and occasionally her Scottish roots. Ancestry is related to new inroads into science and DNA studies etc. and genealogy is a fascinating and increasingly popular subject. There is so much available on Garland's history and it is very interesting in that it demonstrates the ethos of America and she was like all Americans the product of many generations of hard working people who helped build the United States from the earliest times.

To that end I have created a Judy garland ancestry article. At some stage when it is complete I would like to link it to the main article but only if you are agreeable. I would appreciate some help in referencing the article and would like to rely on the original section that was fairly well referenced the main sources were: Gerald Frank's Book - JUDY , Rita Piro's Book, The Golden Years, The Marable family Website and Ancestry.com genealogy of Liza Minnelli.

Any help or advice that you can give re format and references would be greatly appreciated. Overall I think the article is fairly well written but could be more concise. I would like the article to have a picture but am crap at that aspect and never understand all the copyright issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vono (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have moved the article to Judy Garland ancestry to correct the capitalization. I have no issue with linking it to her article, with the see also section probably being the best place for it. Otto4711 (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have linked the ancestry article to the main Judy Garland article - I hope to 'tighten' it up over time. Thanks 82.0.104.72 (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Fictional children

Hey, I guess it was a good thing it was never salted! lol :-D For An Angel (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Hustler

Thank you for reminding me: Please write out the cast like it is in the Casablanca (film) article. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 17:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• I can do that, but it seems like unnecessary duplication to type out a character description which is in the plot summary. Otto4711 (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 6/1 DYK

On 1 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barbette (performer), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 02:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Barbette03.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Barbette03.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mangostar (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knights Templar and popular culture

Just so you're aware, an article you previously nominated for a successful Afd several months ago, has since been cleaned up and merged back into userspace by myself, and a new AfD created in accordance with this Deletion review. If you're interested in participating in the second AfD nomination, then feel free to vote. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, Otto

Thanks for catching Category:Disputed convictions leading to execution as a re-creation under another name. Sometimes it's tricky to catch those when editors have changed the wording... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, those pesky editors can be a wily bunch. Otto4711 (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kennedy CFR

Not at all. The thought of taking it as a criticism had not even entered my mind, I assure you. Good catch! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 09:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)