This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eusebeus (talk | contribs) at 13:46, 6 May 2008 (→Vandalism: reply to Jac#####). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:46, 6 May 2008 by Eusebeus (talk | contribs) (→Vandalism: reply to Jac#####)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Deja Messages Ici Bitte. I will generally respond to any comments, queries, calumnies or complaints here. |
 Archives |
Dirty Dancing
I'm going to try and take Dirty Dancing to FA again... Since you were one of the principal opposers, I thought I'd check with you, what do you think? --Elonka 13:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to take another look when you have it nom'd at FA. Eusebeus (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's currently at peer review, if you'd like to comment there. --Elonka 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism
Is it your intention to piss people off, because you're certainly good at it. My restoration did not contain "gussied up trivia", I'm pretty sure that details of it being a homage to something else, its director, it being the last episode, various production details, plus the directors views on the episode could be called, erm, oh yes, "real-world focus", at least by most people, perhaps not your interpretation, and evidence so far suggests that this episode will be plenty notable. I'm trying to go by the book here, I'm trying to make improvements, and if you actually bothered to contribute to the discussion about the episode articles, which by the way is showing a likelihood of more reverts, you'll see that I'm trying to prevent this, and advocating more article expansion. Its hard to feel motivated when you seem to delight in acting like a dick, Can you not consider the fact that you're not the only one trying to do what they feel is best for the project?--Jac16888 (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- oh and i feel that i should mention that should i restore the article, your reverting will be the 3rd revert, not mine, and also, this was a new episode, created after your redirects, there was no discussion on it. You want it gone, afd it--Jac16888 (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- You are right and I am wrong: as the series finale, it will likely be notable enough to warrant an individual article and I apologise for turning it into a redirect. Please ensure that the primary focus of the article is its real-world significance and bear in mind it is important not to dress up trivia. There are lots of vandals who restore willy nilly and I did not pay close enough attention to this case. Sorry. Eusebeus (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Careful with the "V" word
Believe me, I understand the temptation, but nothing will come of it but trouble.Kww (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)