User talk:Collectonian Information & User talk:Collectonian Links at HealthHaven.com

This is Collectonian's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Collectonian.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Sections with no replies in 3 days are automatically moved.

Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, an attempted at yelling or making demands, flame baiting, ridiculously long with no seeming point, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response. Civil remarks and politely worded questions, if you are asking about an action I took, are far more likely to get you a response. Comments from harassing editors or wikihounders will be summarily removed without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right, so don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.

[edit] Video game templates

Hi, it looks like you've added the deletion discussion for these templates directly into WP:VG/D. Don't you need to list them at WP:TFD first, then list them at WP:VG/D using the Wikipedia template? Marasmusine (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I listed the discussions only at TfD. If they are appearing at WP:VG/D, that is someone else's doing, and not mine. Looking at its actual history, it looks like S@bre did a copy/paste or substitution of the discussions there[1]. I've taken the liberty of undoing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see, my apologies. Marasmusine (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the {{VG Reviews}} template has greater staying power because video games are different from films. Films tend to have more of an "industry" built around commentary. Video games don't really have a similar industry, in my experience -- people look to the scores more frequently than statements. Erik (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So it seems, though I disagree that it has any validity or use. I find the "scores" no better in a template for video games than they would be in films, but it seems the entire video game project is out in force to defend it and the other which isn't even used that much. *sigh* One of many reasons I tend to just avoid working with game articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Happy new year!

Ah, I see we both just paid a visit to a sockpuppet with a thing for the Ghostbusters. :) Nice to see you here as always. Our long-term pest seems to be quiet since I reported him to BellSouth. There's only been one half-hearted attempt since then and I blocked him before he could do any damage. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

howdy do...I keep wondering how I managed to run into these nuts :P It has been nice and quite on the other front at least. Hope your year has started well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's started out great, but my vacation's over...! Gotta go back to work tomorrow, but I have a couple of late Christmas presents arriving Tuesday. Still unpacking here at my new house and I don't have a place (yet) to put the ol' artificial prelit Christmas tree which has always been way too large for its storage bag. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I hear you on going back to work. After two weeks off, getting up early again sucks. New house is great, congrats! :) I have a few outstanding gifts yet to come in myself, as well. Ton of manga and a video game. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Atta girl. Week and a half for me, two weeks for my wife. I'm turning some Christmas cashola from my parents (God bless them!) into an R/C model plane. Used to have a marvelous little park flyer-sized Yak-54 electric which, well, "yakked." A poor repair of the motor mount (my bad) resulted in a crash. The motor went one way and the plane went straight down the other way and believe me, I miss that little model. It performed aerobatics as cleanly as on a simulator. Found another Yak by a different manufacturer/same distributor which calls for the same electrics, so all I needed was the airframe which will give me something to fly at a nearby all-electric flying field. Can't fly my nitro planes there, sad to say. Ordered a new motor for an electric helicopter as well; I'm applying a rebate from my renewed cell phone service toward that rather unexpected problem. It ate a non-removable $3.00 bearing which resulted in the need for an entire $53.00 motor. Such a hobby...anyway, I need to log off before this turns into a novel. Later and thanks for the congrats on the new homestead! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

After splurging on a Canon Rebel T1i during the Black Market sales, I still got myself a Wii Fit Plus for Christmas, and some new boots. :-D *ouch* on the crash...not good when they go in different directions. Cannibalistic motor eh? ;D -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] FYI...

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification :-) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Further Adventures of Lad

On January 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Further Adventures of Lad, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks! Wish I had time to do more DYK reviews again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Windows Odyssey. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. .

I note that you have ceased, and now nominated the article for deletion so do not see the need to take the matter further at this time. However, I would urge you to be more circumspect in future. In addition, you were clearly not reverting vandalism, so it was also unwise to accuse others of vandalism simply because they disagreed with you. Please assume good faith, and use the talk pages in order to resolve disputes. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 18:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning noted. Please also look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Users Collectonian, and SchmuckyTheCat... regarding the issues with possible meat/sockpuppetry and underlying problems going on here. In particular, one of the reverters has just boldly admitted to engaging in meat puppetry. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I am not an admin. Had a quick look though, but very few diffs have been given to support the accusations (on both sides) and I don't feel inclined to delve deeper into edit/contribution histories, so won't be commenting. I'm sure one or more admins will be along in due course to help you all out though. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 19:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Don Giovanni

Sockpuppeter or not, ItsLassieTime seems not to have fabricated Don Juan (ballet). I have more than a passing familiarity with ballet and music but am on vacation and will not spend any more time on this till I get back to NY at the end of the month. -- Robert Greer (talk)

If you can validate the sources, feel free to do so and take responsibility for the content. As of now, though, until this validation is done, the tag needs to remain per the lengthy discussions on their edits (and findings of fabrications and incorrect claims on other articles they did with the same sock). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I am having trouble explaning something on Talk:Aurora_in_Four_Voices. Could you have a look, please. Debresser (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Dreams

I noticed that you cited Dark Dreams: A Psychological History of the Modern Horror Film in Night of the Lepus. I am exploring a revision of Psycho (1960 film) to become a Featured Article in time for its 50th anniversary this June. My project sandbox is here. Do you own the Dark Dreams book, or any of the ones listed there? And could I call on you to provide details from the book(s) when the moment comes? Erik (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alas, no, I don't own that one, just the Videohound book. However, A&M's library has a copy, so I can get you copies of the relevant chapters if I have the page numbers. :-) Oh, and thanks for this[2]. I couldn't remember what sample size was considered too small to be relevant, and meant to look back at the old discussions then totally forgot. Do you think it might be good to mention some kind of minimum in the MoS?-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It is kind of done, but the wording could be better: "These will be more reliable in retrospect; closer to the release, review aggregate websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. (Caution: reliable review statistics may not be available for older films. Appraise the sample size in conjunction with other reliable sources, using best judgment to determine consensus.)" The sentences in parentheses indicate what I meant, although the last sentence could be tweaked somewhat. It's not just sample size, either... for example, I did not use Rotten Tomatoes at Fight Club because reaction was more divided when it came out, and RT didn't provide a snapshot of that. About the book for Psycho, that would be great! I just need to see how good the current article is; I suppose I like personally verifying all content to "trust" it. Erik (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't blame you there. I tend to do that too, especially if I'm working on getting up to GA or FA, as I've gotten burned before for not doing so and finding out it didn't quite match the source :-P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Maneater series

My error. Reference #22 already existing on the Maneater series page is regarding DVD release of Something Beneath. It's also listed as being part of the series in at least three sources i found. But none of them from the official Genius site, which doesn't include it. It may have been part of the series at one time and punted. Thanks. Shelleyk3425 (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, it was never intended to be part of the series from the official sources of its launch and later press releases on new releases. I suspect the three sources stating it was all got it from the same single source that erroneously thought it was. I'm inclined to go with the official releaser here as the authority on which are in the series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Contents