1238:! I strongly disagree with you about using Academy.ca as a source for people being nominated for the award. I believe its wide use along with the fact it is not black-listed (unlike the other examples you keep mentioning) is a consensus that it is correct. Any other source like a magazine, even Variety, will have gotten their information from that site! Unlike IMDB or even Knowledge (XXG) it is not operated by anyone that cares to edit. It is not being Referenced to try and prove that the awards are notable, it is being referenced to prove the individual or film/TV show has gotten the award. I'm sorry but you are just wrong to keep asserting it can't be used in this way. Even with all that, that's why I also included the Variety Refs to back it up, though you even grumbled about using more than two Refs! I actually assumed we'd gotten past this yesterday but you keep returning to it without any actual proof there is a guideline, policy or even a consensus against its use in this way. Sorry, if you can't see that your responses have been a tad on the aggressive side, not sure we're on the same wavelength. I
1045:
called you on it. I'm not trying to trump you or anything nor do I want a fight but I've been careful to follow the guidlines so was surprised to see your removal of those sources for the stated reason. As to not needing two Refs for a fact, there is no rule saying you cannot have two Refs for a fact or even more. Indeed having two good Refs for a fact aids verifiability. There are even
Editors that go around mass removing things if they are un-sourced, so it has proven beneficial to include at least two solid Refs. Had I only used the Academy.ca Ref for instance, you'd have removed it & could have pulled the whole Accolades table as being un-sourced. Again, no harm comes from having two good sources. I've tried my best to avoid butting heads here but so many seem to treat this like a full contact sport. Just trying to add facts & aid the spread of correct information. Thanks for taking time to reply. Take care,
1420:" See I think you're onto a losing argument there, those awards are clearly notable, they are nationally broadcast industry high watermark awards. So trying to say this whole long drawn out argument is about fighting for notable award coverage only seems, weak at best. Not only is that my view, admittedly a small new Editor who can be brushed aside, but it's clearly the majority view of Editors in the entertainment field on Knowledge (XXG). As already stated official award sites are cited on pretty much the majority of Celebs, Movies & TV in this manner. So unless you can convince all of them, seems moot to try to convince me. Consensus, whether you admit it or not, is against you. You are expressing your take on things, not the official & certainly not practiced convention with regards to using official award sites as Refs for nominations/wins. "
1343:. All of your examples, except Spotify, are listed there. So effectively black listed for Referencing. YouTube also listed there, though with the very important caveat (often overlooked) that it can be used as long as the uploaders are reliable (& thus also own the copyright). Academy.ca is notably not listed among the problematic sites to use for referencing (yes I realise that does not mean it's open season for any use). If it was I would understand more your insistence on not using it to prove a nomination or win. You still keep veering off into notability. Citing Academy.ca is not trying to prove notability of the award or the subject. It's being cited to prove the stated fact that said award nomination exists. So there is no issue with citing them for that, which is why most pages citing such awards will use the official award site. Like the
1366:
supposed to document nominations for or wins of awards that are not notable (i.e. do not get media coverage). A film can win "best film" at 100 smalltown film festivals that get no media attention, but the lack of media attention means that those festival awards aren't notable enough to be listed in our article about that film — a film's article is only supposed to list notable awards, meaning awards that can be sourced to media coverage, and is not supposed to list awards that can't be sourced to media coverage and instead have to depend on primary sourcing. So that's why I keep discussing notability — because the notability or non-notability of the award, by virtue of the ability or inability to source it to third party journalistic reportage in media, is what
1390:
news story or not, and who they got their information from is not the issue. No matter who the original source of the information was, it's notable if journalists for real third party media have independently deemed the information significant enough to produce secondary source reportage about it as news, and not notable if journalists for real third party media have not independently deemed the information significant enough to produce secondary source reportage about it as news — notability does not vest in the fact per se, it vests in the extent to which independent third party journalists did or didn't consider the fact to be worth taking the time to report on as news, and an award can't be listed in the article
644:
North East line platforms, which were completed in 2003, the
Stamford Canal had to be diverted while excavating through part of Mount Sophia. The Circle line platforms opened in 2010 along with Stages 1 and 2 of the line. The only triple-line MRT interchange station in Singapore, Dhoby Ghaut station is one of the deepest and largest stations with five basement levels. Its deepest point is at 28 metres (92 ft) below ground. The station features many forms of artworks, three of them under the Art-in-Transit scheme in the North East line and Circle line stations, a pair of Art Seats at the Circle line platforms and an art piece above the North South line platforms.
851:! Sorry, which answer that I gave was wrong? I just recently helped someone at the Teahouse with the correct answer to posting a table of contents on the left. Before that I gave the correct answer to what the "abc" meant on References (another member gave an identical answer at the same time I posted mine). I've taken great care to only answer things that I know to be right. I note that the answer that another more experienced Editor gave (in good faith) about contacting via Email was wrong. So how long an Editor has been here is not a guarantee they are correct. I even checked the Teahouse page about answering questions &
2273:"Title" heading at the top of the table column). Ignoring The & A at the beginning of titles is a common filing convention for this very reason, it improves the accessibility of the tables & ease of use. As for looking weird, data-sort-values are completely invisible to anyone viewing the normal table in the article & only visible when editing the page. Many things on an edited page will look odd as the code is visible, the infobox or rowspan formatting for example look quite strange as code, that's perfectly normal. Data-sort-values are a recommended addition to sortable tables as mentioned in places like
1351:". You are going against the established way things are clearly done so surely the onus to prove you have backing for that is on you? It would also mean a massive re-ordering of how awards are referenced on film & celebrity articles as it is not only widespread but I'd call it the norm. Your standpoint seems head scratching to me. If the award in question was something no one had heard of, then I could understand your reasoning but the particular one in question is Canada's equivalent of the Oscars! Clearly we will not see eye to eye on this. Take care,
964:! Seems that if multiple Editors throughout Knowledge (XXG) think using Academy.ca as a Ref for the award is correct, isn't that a consensus that it is correct procedure? Certainly does not seem to be a harmful or in any way inaccurate Ref. To the second point, so you're advocating using Knowledge (XXG)'s naming in one of their articles to override the name used in both References? Surely Knowledge (XXG) is not an accepted reliable source? You can link to those pages but leave the name as both references call them, would prevent confusion. Take care,
1425:" Because many Editors obviously believe that the official award site, certainly in the case of Academy.ca or the Oscars, is a more reliable source than a media outlet. At the very least it's where the media outlet got the info, which I see you concede. Not listed as unreliable either so I'm still not seeing a reason to not include. The more reliable sources used (within reason) only helps to improve verifiability. As I say, we are obviously not going to convince the other so this seems to be pointless. We're simply going in circles. Take care,
590:! Come off it, your first post on this talk page was clearly telling me not to continue making my case over in Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I can't see how it can be taken in any other way. I don't fight my corner in that discussion?! It's a discussion! The other Editors are allowed to fight their corner in the discussion but I am not? That's not a debate, it's a beat down. I'm not attacking you but you keep coming to my Talk page to wag your finger. If you want to avoid a battle perhaps you should examine your behavior. I'll inform you of
541:" Thank-you, that was my understanding of how it worked & I see others also argue their case. Not sure why an Editor felt the need to come to my Talk to shut me down. I was polite in responding & simply wanted to address points raised against my case. Debate is normally seen as good. When suggesting a change to the status quo one normally has to listen to the arguments for & then respond with reasons against. I was certainly waiting for a consensus & willing to accept the result after a discussion. I do feel it's a bit of an
1520:" Good for you, genuinely good for you. I also do good work too, here & elsewhere. Does not make you right. You brought up that awards need to be notable as if that was the issue with me using Academy.ca, so I shot that down. I'm really at a loss why you keep coming back. I'm not buying what you're selling. If you want people to agree with your way on this you'll need to convince far more people than me. You may also want to try a different method for persuading them as this has not been a pleasant experience. Take care,
1194:
the
Academy itself, or an article about the person, film or organization who the Academy gave the award to — the Academy is directly affiliated with the claim being made, and is thus a primary source which cannot recursively demonstrate the notability of its own awards. The award is notable because it gets media coverage, not just because it exists, so the media coverage has to be used as the sourcing in order to demonstrate that the award is a notable one.
1848:! You are confused, I have not changed the distributors of Darcy's Wild Life. Please indicate the edit where you believe I have done so. In fact your recent edit has removed references to reliable sources that I added that actually support Temple Street handling production & distribution. I've no idea why you believe removing those but leaving the company in the article makes any sense at all? If you look at the history you'll find
1627:
1586:
186:
1710:& it seems to be a very new awards ceremony (appears to have only just started?) so it is probably too soon to create an article about it on Knowledge (XXG). Articles here need some significant coverage first in order to qualify for an article. Once the first ceremony is held there will possibly be media coverage to support it. For advice from much more experienced editors, you may wish to ask about this over at
1175:
that other people have received a nomination for a
Canadian Screen Award, as can be seen all over Knowledge (XXG) as a standard. Even on other pages that you traversed. I note you did not further challenge that fact once I pointed it out to you. So please take my quote in context rather than applying it to a totally separate topic. I never said any such thing in regards the use of that useful Lea Carlson info
101:
2091:
1737:
1507:! Not making up straw-men, the accusation is rich since you keep slamming in the notability again & again without ever producing any legitimate rule that says Academy.ca can't be used as a Ref to prove a nomination/win. That's all I did, use Academy.ca as a Ref to prove an award. I even included a media source (Variety) as a second Ref. All of that has led you to doggedly argue with me about
94:
1179:. As I say, I mentioned that to you in hopes it would be useful info & possible Ref for pointing to as to the other info it mentions in the article. I thought it would make a nice "peace offering" to clear the air between us. Clearly I was mistaken to try in any way to be friendly. Clearly that is an alien concept here & is treated with suspicion & disgust. Take care,
732:)! Thank-you so much, that is so much easier! It's been terrible having to try & respond to individuals without this, to the point I wonder why it isn't the default. So nice to see there are helpful people here who don't threaten & link to long dense rule pages but rather just offer a helping hand. Thank-you for taking time to explain.
2455:" That's rather ironic, as it is your edits that are removing the work of others like myself who have taken time to add sortname or data-sort-values to tables. The reason the other information you've added gets removed at the same time as your unexplained deletions of the data-sort values is that when an edit is reverted it undoes all of it.
1995:. One is not promoted above the other. They match all the other citations I've done on that article. Personally I don't care for the citation template style as I find them rigid & also easily broken. I've been fixing a few recently in my travels that throw script errors because they left out a field, even
1081:— if an award lacks third party coverage in real media, and thus has to be sourced to the awarding organization's own self-published press releases, then it isn't a notable award at all by definition. A primary source is any content that's directly affiliated with the claim it's being used to support, at
2272:
to properly sort titles in alphabetical order by ignoring common starting words like A or The at the beginning. For example if you have multiple titles beginning with "The", as is quite common, without a data-sort-value they will all end up clumped together when the titles are sorted (by clicking the
1389:
from the sources of that information — that's literally how newsgathering works. But information isn't automatically notable just because it's true — the question of whether the information is notable or not depends on whether journalists considered the information significant enough to treat it as a
1211:
it's already been broken. So the fact that you can find instances where somebody has used the
Academy's own website as sourcing for a Canadian Screen Award nomination or win doesn't mean we have a consensus that it's acceptable to do that — it means that somebody used a bad source, and it needs to be
1202:
can edit, we have no mechanism to actually ensure that "anyone" is always doing things correctly or obeying the rules. Our rule against sourcing articles about actors to IMDb doesn't stop people from trying to source articles about actors to IMDb, our rule against sourcing articles about musicians to
829:
answer to the user's question. The
Teahouse is often where new users ask questions regarding editing Knowledge (XXG) and considering you are a new user yourself (your account is only 1 month old) it would be better for you to be asking questions rather than answering them, as if a new user receives a
682:
style forums. I've very, very bad eyesight so the jumbled text messages are problematic for me to read, which is why I like to break them up into separate lines. That necessitated an indent for each line. I was unaware until the angry response that it offended people. :( I've had to struggle to learn
1511:
on how it should be done. The method I used is the same as the majority of people citing award nominations. So I guess it's all of us wrong & you right? I don't see where this is going. I don't agree with your take on this. From what I can see the majority don't agree with you either. So I guess
634:
Hello, I just wanted to comment on the use of ":" colons for indenting. You ought not keep using the colons for each line when you write a comment on a talk page. Just do it once and the text will automatically wrap with line breaks at the same amount of indentation. To illustrate, I will paste some
346:
When many editors with much much more experience than you disagree with an opinion only you hold about long-standing wiki policies, perhaps the issue is that there is not much case to argue. It is not that you shouldn't have brought up the issue (you are encouraged to do so), but rather than arguing
327:
Yes, but once its clear consensus is against you its time to drop it. The problem is that you are not listening to what you are being told, but rather trying to find ways to continue to claim you are right. By the way, if we were not being friendly this would have been a formal warning, and not just
1488:
would ever say that they weren't notable. I said that notability is determined by media coverage, not by the fact that an award has its own self-published website — the CSAs have media coverage, and I never said any different, but the media coverage is what makes them notable enough to be listed in
1174:
had received a nomination from them. In that context, my statement is true. You could not use a
Reference to Academy.ca for trying to prove something about Academy.ca, I totally agree with that, you seem to be conflating the two very different situations here. They can & are used as a Reference
1129:
as a source for that award for that very reason. I specifically said that the info mentioned there, some light Bio info on the lady in question, may be of use if you are intending to expand her article here at
Knowledge (XXG). For example it mentions some of her work & other nominations. It was
1197:
And like I already said earlier, yes, it's true that there are instances where the self-published website of an award organization (the
Canadian Screen Awards, the Junos, etc.) has been improperly used as the source for its own award nominations or wins — but that's not because we have a consensus
1193:
That's not a different context at all, it's exactly what I was talking about: if the
Academy gives an award or a nomination to a person, film or organization, then the Academy's own website is inherently a primary source for that claim. It doesn't matter whether you're using it in an article about
1044:
in place to say why they should not be used or (like YouTube) the specific cases where they are & are not to be used. That does not apply to Academy.ca. In the case of Academy.ca you specifically said not to use it because it was self published. That did not properly apply here, which is why I
643:
Dhoby Ghaut station was part of the early plans for the original MRT network since 1982. It was constructed as part of Phase I of the MRT network which was completed in 1987. Following the network's operational split, the station has been served by the North South line since 1989. To construct the
1219:
Also, I fail to see how I'm being "unfriendly" here: I haven't attacked you or called you names or anything, all I've done is politely explain why certain sources aren't appropriate for use. If not just blindly agreeing with everything you say is automatically "unfriendly", even though I've been
869:
I'm not saying that any of your answers have been wrong so far. Apologies if it seemed that way. I didn't mean to intend it that way. I'm just simply suggesting for you to be cautious. When I first joined Knowledge (XXG) I was a bit over ambitious and answered questions on Teahouse when I didn't
1269:
I also don't know what distinction you think you're trying to draw with "It is not being Referenced to try and prove that the awards are notable, it is being referenced to prove the individual or film/TV show has gotten the award" — in order to establish that an award is notable enough to even
1365:
The reason I keep harping on the notability issue is because the notability issue is inherent to whether the award even gets to be listed in the article at all. Our articles are only supposed to document nominations for or wins of awards that are notable (i.e. get media coverage), and are not
1278:, it is necessary to establish that the award is one that gets media coverage, which is done by sourcing it to the media coverage. Any award that can't be sourced to media coverage, and instead requires you to lean on the awarding organization's own self-published website or press releases in
1261:
Absolutely none of the other sites I mentioned are "blacklisted" at all. YouTube is not blacklisted, Spotify is not blacklisted, IMDb is not blacklisted, Amazon is not blacklisted, and on and so forth — it is entirely possible to use any of those sites as "referencing" without triggering the
328:
saying you need to read our rules. If you are acting in a way that seems contrary to our policies, of course, we have to tell you, before some admin blocks you, how else will you learn? What I am telling you is that right now you are heading down a path that may lead to a block for being
1085:
end of the event chain — you seem to think that if A gives an award (or an award nomination) to B, then only B's self-published content would be a primary source, while A's self-published content would be perfectly acceptable sourcing to establish notability, but that's not the case.
1972:
I personally have no dog in the fight as to who the original Distributor was, as I say I did not change it. As to the ref I added, since Temple Street was listed in the Distributor field when I was looking for the best use case for the references, I used the one which mentioned
1297:
is a site that "anyone can edit". The problem with the Academy's website isn't that it might be wrong about stuff, it's that the Academy's website doesn't constitute evidence that their awards are notable enough to make their winners or nominees notable on that basis — it's the
1010:
And you don't need two references for the same fact, either. If the preferred media reference already properly verifies the fact, then the Academy's website isn't necessary anymore as supplementary reverification of a fact that's already properly verified by the media
978:
Knowledge (XXG) editors routinely think we can source content in Knowledge (XXG) articles to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify, Amazon, IMDb or blogs. That doesn't mean there's a consensus that it's proper to do so — it means that in an encyclopedia that
902:— so you do have to use media coverage to source award nominations, in order to demonstrate that the award is even notable enough to even be listed in the table in the first place. It's true that there have been examples of people using the Academy's own website in
1538:
is best, but if the award or at least the org behind is notable (usually meaning it has a non-awful looking WP-article), a primary source will probably do. Having both is usually harmless, the primary source sometimes has some interesting info. Carry on.
940:
we can split up the referencing so that the winners are sourced to an article about the winners while the nominees remain sourced to an article about the nominees. But for the time being, we don't need to deviate from standard format just because there
769:! Would definitely make entry for newer users smoother if it was made default, so I hope they do decide to. The live preview is also really nice. I actually picked up the article editing quickly, it was responding to talk points that has been brutal. "
1246:
on & it reignites this whole argument on using Academy.ca to show someone has been nominated. As for a discussion, it does not feel like you want a discussion, more that you are demanding things be your way because that's what you say. Take care,
1347:. This is the standard convention used, I'm not making this up, have a look around & you will see. I don't think this widespread & perfectly reasonable behavior, that is not countered by a written rule, can be blithely written off as "
234:
750:
as well, which is a big bonus on talkpages with a lot of traffic. To quote a journalist, "Knowledge production, at least in the Knowledge (XXG) sense, is part collaboration and part combat." The combat part is often less fun, IMO.
1152:, in one of your messages on my talk page, that "The fact it is their site & self published would only be a negative if it was in an article about them, not someone else", so it's not at all true that you didn't claim it.
1397:
And I also don't know why you keep saying that the Academy's website is just there to prove that she received the nomination, when the fact that she received the nomination is already adequately proven by the media source.
855:. Boy, being warned off from helping people now. :( I actually had the feeling this would happen but I dismissed it as being too negative about Knowledge (XXG), guess I should have gone with my gut instincts. :( Take care,
1475:
which awards can be listed and which awards can't. You're literally just making up strawmen to argue with me about, because I never said the Canadian Screen Awards weren't notable — you might want to try checking out who
683:
all the new ways of navigating this place. I don't think it will be an issue in the future as I don't seem welcome here all round. Again thanks for taking the time to calmly, politely reach out & help someone. I
2136:
1782:
1422:
And I also don't know why you keep saying that the Academy's website is just there to prove that she received the nomination, when the fact that she received the nomination is already adequately proven by the media
545:
there as only those Editors already deeply involved in Reliable sources/Noticeboard seem to respond, the same people that presumable decided the policy in the first place. :( Thanks again for responding. Take care,
705:
and enable a thingie called "Discussion tools", you will get a "reply" link at the end of each comment, and using that both indents correctly and signs. There's also a button (little guy with a +) for easy
1880:
It seems probable to me that the actual distributor of the show was Discovery Communications, but I have not checked the cited source yet – What in that source indicates that Temple Street was actual the
781:, new posts would come in as I was trying to post my reply, making it an even less enjoyable experience. This Reply tip of yours would have helped so much. Many thanks again for pointing it out to me. "
1873:
What would be useful in this case would be an expansion of the 'Production' section of the article, with a lot of the material in the infobox covered in that section and properly sourced there. (IOW,
2120:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
1766:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
1203:
Spotify or YouTube doesn't stop people from trying to source articles about musicians to Spotify or YouTube, and on and so forth: we have no mechanism at all to prevent anybody from breaking a rule
1073:
or notability-building source for the Ontario Arts Council's own awards. To turn any award into a notability claim for the recipient of the award, it has to be shown that the award is one that the
426:
Sorry, I'm still very hurt by your tone, look at my brief work here & it's all been additions & fixing broken links in References. I honestly don't think I deserve how you've spoken to me.
1703:
1688:
1014:
Knowledge (XXG) using a short title for an award category, instead of an excessively long official name, does not constitute using Knowledge (XXG) as a circular "reference" either. Our rule is
2105:
1751:
226:
219:
211:
207:
1484:
a few weeks ago, who's actually doing the work of getting the badly done category articles properly referenced to the standard they're actually supposed to be meeting, etc.) if you think
497:
template can also be used to acknowledge these messages and avoid receiving them (they are renewable every 12 months). I also forgot to mention at RSN, but for biographies there is also
1098:
the giver (the ACCT, the Ontario Arts Council) are primary sources that can't establish the notability of their own transaction from either end, and an award presentation has to have
454:
I assumed the point was to hear what a counter argument would be. Again I don't see how a few replies to new arguments against my suggestion was disruptive or any where near endless.
414:
The most annoyed I've gotten was in reply to the original Editor's rather terse dealings with me but even then I kept it polite, even wishing them happy holiday seasons at one point!
347:
endlessly won't convince anyone more than what you already have said. At some point, it is better just to back away from the discussion rather than arguing just for the sake of it.
206:, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called
38:
381:
My understanding was that place was where we discussed a problem if we had one, there had only been a handful of replies & at no point did a reply back seem unwarranted.
537:
effectively telling me not to argue my case & then telling me I'd be blocked for disruptive behavior that made me stop responding at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. :( "
2013:
Agree – it's not breaking any "rules". But simple-text based refs have disadvantages to template-based ones, so I am likely convert them when if/when I get the chance. --
487:
that I used above to generate the message, in case it's related. The message is for everyone who edits biographies (and I have received one before too). If wanted, the
2277:. You don't need to add them yourself, just please don't delete them as they take quite a bit of work to set up, particularly on longer tables. Thanks for your time!
1940:. It's a bit odd to be told not to do something again when I've not done it a first time. :) I notice a few minutes after telling them they got it wrong, they posted
1870:
Adam is correct that only the original distributor (and credited producers) should be listed. But you added sources that should not have removed by Adam regardless.
1340:
1041:
1038:
Knowledge (XXG) editors routinely think we can source content in Knowledge (XXG) articles to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify, Amazon, IMDb or blogs.
594:. I've been polite & not attacked anyone, just because you don't agree with my point in Reliable sources/Noticeboard does not mean I'm disruptive. Take care,
2274:
1884:
One final comment – while adding sources is definitely good, I can't say I care how they've been added here (i.e. as "basic text", and not using a template like
1966:
that one of my added refs would be great to expand production/behind the scenes paragraph. I'm tempted to do so myself but things like this keep putting me off.
1955:" Thanks, I added them back. Not the easiest show to find references for so I was pleased to find those & upset to see them removed without a proper reason.
1418:
The reason I keep harping on the notability issue is because the notability issue is inherent to whether the award even gets to be listed in the article at all.
423:
If the point of that page is not to argue the point brought before the panel then perhaps there should be some mention of it or a set limit to how many replies.
417:
I've seen the angry responses on that Editor's Talk page, far more heated than anything I've said to them, so I know I'm not alone in having problems with them.
1975:"Temple Street Entertainment, a Toronto-based TV and film production and distribution company responsible for TV's Queer as Folk and the new Darcy's Wild Life"
591:
116:
73:
2461:
What you are doing is, still without explanation, deleting the hard work of others. Please stop doing that, I'm making an effort here to explain. Take care,
2446:
data-sort-values are only needed for titles beginning with common words like "The" or "A". They are not needed for titles that don't begin with common words.
115:
2195:
1394:
if if isn't an award that journalists consider significant enough to follow up with third party journalism that treats the award nominations as newsworthy.
1305:
And again: the fact that you can find evidence of the Academy's own self-published website being used that way does not constitute evidence that we have a
1981:
removed Temple Street from the distributor field I moved that one ref to support the fact they were Darcy's Production company as they also back that up.
906:
of proper media coverage, but that doesn't mean it's standard and acceptable practice — it means those people did it wrong and such instances need to be
1377:
It's not a question of where the media outlet did or didn't get their information from, either, so I don't know why you keep saying that. Media outlets
203:
133:! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Knowledge (XXG) and get help from experienced editors like
2068:
article, I tend to work on Canadian actor articles that have maintenance tags. Perhaps add some more detail to your comment so I can help. Take care,
1999:
the other day. So I stick to my preference of hand written citations, they aren't against any rules. Thanks for taking time to reply here! Take care,
1471:. So to get them listed in any article, you have to use media coverage to source it, because the existence or non-existence of media coverage is what
79:
652:
So just a single use of the triple colon. I noticed some users were annoyed with the way you were doing this manually. Hope that helps, cheers, --
237:. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
2429:
2414:
2191:
1856:
is the one that removed Discovery Communications. Would probably be best before making accusations to get your facts right first. Take care,
408:
Only that one minor Reference caused a clash between us & when they instructed me to take it before the panel on that talk page I did so.
1544:
756:
729:
715:
2159:
2061:
2046:
1805:
1123:
you seem to think that if A gives an award (or an award nomination) to B, then only B's self-published content would be a primary source
2257:
2242:
1692:
635:
text (from a random article) below this. I will triple indent it with ":::" three colons and you can see how it automatically wraps.
230:
1302:
coverage that proves that the CSAs are notable enough to warrant being documented in Knowledge (XXG), not the Academy's own website.
332:, as you might have started to become a time sink, being told the same thing by multiple editors and trying to find a way around it.
999:
that bad referencing has been used. So the fact that something is happening doesn't automatically constitute a consensus that it's
24:
823:
Hello TurtleNeck! I'd just like to advise you to not answer questions on the Teahouse unless you are completely sure you know the
1540:
852:
766:
752:
725:
711:
68:
2155:
1801:
572:, no you do not fight your corner, again this is a warning about moderating your behavuior so it is not seen as violating that.
2366:
2129:
1992:
1775:
917:
Secondly, the table has to link to our articles about the categories, at the titles where our articles about the categories
59:
451:
Obviously the people there will think the opposite to my initial suggestion, they helped make the rule in the first place.
2348:
375:
I most certainly am listening to what is being said to me in that section, I'm a little annoyed for you to say otherwise.
215:
2462:
2394:
2320:
2278:
2222:
2221:
Thank-you kindly! I goofed when adding a link in a ref for The Montreal Gazette Wiki article, now corrected. Take care,
2069:
2019:
2000:
1910:
1857:
1715:
1668:
1521:
1426:
1352:
1248:
1180:
1135:
1046:
965:
856:
797:
733:
688:
595:
547:
460:
429:
314:
20:
475:
Just been contacted with the implication I'm not supposed to reply back to these to make my case so guess that's it.:("
2141:
1787:
1481:
505:. And asking for advice at RSN was fine, I suggest to just wait for community input and to respect the consensus. —
420:
It's very offensive, based on me just politely arguing my case, as I thought was the point, to call me a "time sink".
163:
302:
If I was just meant to come before a board & shut my mouth, seems a bit of a waste of time to post there at all.
772:
747:
2458:
If you'd just stop removing sortname & data-sort-values, your edits would be much less likely to be reverted.
2443:
2418:
405:
I re-thought the two deleted references with their brief critique in mind & one seems to be fine by them now.
357:
569:
2393:! Thank-you kindly for taking the time to review the Bill Turnbull article, it is much appreciated! Take care,
539:
And asking for advice at RSN was fine, I suggest to just wait for community input and to respect the consensus.
140:
2117:
2050:
1763:
1963:
1941:
445:
I don't think it's fair to say I argued it endlessly, I made a few replies to the point raised, politely too.
1894:). If that doesn't get changed by someone else, I will likely change the formatting of those cites to using
2185:
1015:
565:
329:
2261:
2246:
1834:
1220:
polite all along, then what's the point in actually engaging in any discussion on Knowledge (XXG) at all?
577:
528:
511:
337:
268:
248:
785:" Oh my yes that's proven sadly true for me. :( I came for the collaborative but had, up until you &
49:
2340:
1932:" And if I'd changed it I might understand why they are telling me this but as mentioned to them above,
1534:
I have not read most of the above discussion, but my rule of thumb on awards/whatever is that secondary
1170:! I said that in response to your claim that Academy.ca could not be used as a Reference to verify that
564:
No, I warned you about a policy which meant that if you continued to argue every point might be seen as
1985:"I can't say I care how they've been added here (i.e. as "basic text", and not using a template like {{
1711:
1640:
260:
147:
130:
64:
1838:
384:
Of course I think I'm right on this issue, I'd not have wasted anyone's time if I thought I was wrong.
2269:
2265:
2176:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
1003:
for it to be happening: it just constitutes stuff that needs to be fixed to properly comply with our
876:
836:
542:
349:
2099:
1745:
2379:
783:
Knowledge production, at least in the Knowledge (XXG) sense, is part collaboration and part combat.
702:
2113:
1960:
What would be useful in this case would be an expansion of the 'Production' section of the article
1759:
568:, in fact nowhere did I tell you to stop. I told you to be careful. I will also now inform you of
1826:
1819:
793:
675:
660:
2413:
You have not explained "before" and why only for one show? Why delete information I've added.
870:
actually know the answer. If you want proof just check some of my earlier talk page archives. ―
498:
1321:
by somebody who's willing to take the time to locate a better source before they can be fixed.
2302:
2211:
1986:
1978:
1898:
1888:
1845:
1830:
1494:
1403:
1344:
1326:
1239:
1225:
1176:
1157:
1126:
1107:
1023:
950:
587:
573:
534:
523:
506:
491:
481:
369:
333:
281:
264:
243:
45:
2125:
1930:
Adam is correct that only the original distributor (and credited producers) should be listed.
1771:
1102:
coverage in real media in order to even be notable enough to mention in our articles at all.
707:
2148:
2023:
1914:
1794:
1664:
1645:
1600:
192:
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.
2128:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
2121:
1774:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
1767:
2470:
2422:
2402:
2383:
2328:
2306:
2286:
2250:
2230:
2215:
2163:
2077:
2054:
2028:
2008:
1919:
1874:
1865:
1809:
1723:
1696:
1676:
1654:
1609:
1548:
1529:
1498:
1434:
1407:
1360:
1330:
1256:
1229:
1188:
1161:
1143:
1111:
1054:
1027:
973:
954:
881:
871:
864:
848:
841:
831:
760:
741:
719:
696:
663:
603:
581:
555:
517:
468:
437:
363:
341:
322:
272:
254:
1535:
1070:
1004:
911:
502:
2188:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.
1626:
1585:
1207:
they break the rule, and our only recourse we have is to notice and fix the rule breach
2390:
2344:
2241:
It looks weird and doesn't do anything for the shows/movies anyway. What's the point?
830:
wrong answer but doesn't know the answer is wrong then that may lead to some issues. ―
746:
Making it default is the plan, I think, but it hasn't happened yet. It seems to avoid
185:
2202:
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
1945:
1853:
788:
672:
655:
390:
But I don't think, if you look at what I said there, that any of it was discourteous.
2316:
2309:
2298:
2207:
2203:
2177:
1504:
1490:
1413:
1399:
1336:
1322:
1235:
1221:
1167:
1153:
1118:
1103:
1033:
1019:
961:
946:
2090:
1736:
1439:
Yes, the Canadian Screen Awards are notable, and I never said otherwise — but the
1970:"...What in that source indicates that Temple Street was actual the distributor?"
1262:
blacklist filter, but the fact that they're not blacklisted doesn't mean they're
293:
I'm sorry, isn't that section for talking through a problem to reach a consensus?
2181:
2014:
1948:'s talk page. Would have been nice if they'd cleared things up with a post here.
1925:
1905:
1243:
1131:
2064:! Not sure what you're trying to say here? I did do some reference work on the
378:
I've been polite in all my responses there, I was addressing the points raised.
2065:
1130:
simply a friendly reach out to try & help out a fellow Editor working on
299:
That seems rather against the collaborative nature of Knowledge (XXG) surely?
1317:
with a more appropriately independent source, but their mistakes have to be
679:
1339:! By blacklisted, I mean mentioned as unsuitable for use as a Reference at
399:
When challenged on the Reference I tried talking to the Editor responsible.
396:
My sole actions up to this point have been to add information to articles.
1707:
2132:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
1778:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
1480:
the overwhelming majority of our work on CSA articles (e.g. who created
1274:
mentioned in the article about a film or an actor or a costume designer
1134:. Don't worry, I won't make that mistake in your case again. Take care,
2109:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
1755:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
135:
1953:
But you added sources that should not have removed by Adam regardless.
894:
Firstly, an award isn't notable enough to be mentioned in our article
796:
reached out helping hands, encountered only the combative. Take care,
1825:
Knowledge (XXG) only allows the original producer and distributor of
387:
I can certainly see that everyone there is against my view, so be it.
983:
can edit, we have no way to stop anyone from breaking our rules in
1282:
of real journalism, isn't notable enough by definition to even be
1125:" Um, no. Never claimed that at all. Note I did not use that site
678:! Thank-you for your kindness. I'm very new here & am used to
1242:, in hopes to clear the air, with some useful info on a separate
921:. The rule on here isn't that we have to precisely replicate the
777:" Oh my yes, I encountered that in my recent discussion post in
775:
as well, which is a big bonus on talkpages with a lot of traffic.
263:. There comes a point when arguing your case becomes problomatic.
100:
2145:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
1791:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
987:
of a bad edit. We can't stop someone from using a bad reference
198:
imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
2135:
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
2103:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All
1781:
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
1749:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All
1313:
to do that — it means people did stuff wrong that needs to be
533:! Thanks for clarifying. It wasn't that generated message but
158:
15:
1198:
that that's acceptable, it's because in an encyclopedia that
411:
I'm honestly not seeing anything disruptive on my part here.
1455:. They can be listed in the articles about Lea Carlson ahd
701:
LGIATN, about discussing on WP talkpages. If you go here :
853:
it suggests answering a few before requesting being a host
107:
LooksGreatInATurtleNeck, you are invited to the Teahouse!
1518:
the overwhelming majority of our work on CSA articles...
1349:
it means people did stuff wrong that needs to be 'fixed'
710:. There may be other stuff in the preferences you like.
2339:
Hi LooksGreatInATurtleNeck. Thank you for your work on
2180:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
2116:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
1996:
1993:
is a choice as regards template vs writing them by hand
1937:
1849:
1762:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
2319:! Thank-you kindly for your understanding! Take care,
1069:
Again, an Ontario Arts Council press release is not a
402:
Again I was polite but did disagree with their stance.
296:
You mean I'm supposed to say nothing to argue my case?
1293:
website was one that "anyone can edit" — I said that
914:
coverage in real media when one sees it being done.
1040:" Oh I understand that but in those cases there are
2360:
1687:Could this be added? www.thevalyriestuntawards.org
308:
Wow, this place really isn't the friendliest is it?
2359:To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with
1489:nominees' articles, and their own website isn't.
1018:, not "officialism for the sake of officialism".
2172:Disambiguation link notification for December 12
27:, where you can send them messages and comments.
2353:
2335:I have sent you a note about a page you started
1904:and related templates when I get the chance. --
1374:to be listed in the article in the first place.
703:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures
448:My understanding was that was a debating arena.
2444:explained that to you again on your talk page,
127:! Thanks for contributing to Knowledge (XXG).
8:
991:they do it, we can only fix bad referencing
93:
925:name of the category, it's that we use the
473:Hello again, just a comment in relation to
393:How is any of what I said there disruptive?
225:For additional information, please see the
210:is in effect. Any administrator may impose
222:, when making edits related to the topic.
202:You have shown interest in articles about
2433:
1818:The original producer and distributor of
1683:The Valkyrie Stunt Awards, United Kingdom
1714:. Hope this is of some help! Take care,
1077:consider significant enough to cover as
1514:you might want to try checking out who
878:
838:
477:that I have just noticed at RSN and of
1829:, so please do not change them again.
1708:https://www.thevalkyriestuntawards.org
1704:2A02:C7F:1F66:BF00:8827:B713:51E1:D3BB
1689:2A02:C7F:1F66:BF00:8827:B713:51E1:D3BB
474:
305:Sorry, confused by what you're saying.
214:on editors who do not strictly follow
2436:as you are clearly the same person. "
7:
2100:2023 Arbitration Committee elections
1746:2022 Arbitration Committee elections
1467:be listed in those articles if they
2118:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process
2084:ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
1964:a while back on the Darcy Talk page
1764:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process
1730:ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
227:guidance on discretionary sanctions
2452:Why delete information I've added.
1667:! I'm happy to have been of help!
1341:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
204:living or recently deceased people
14:
2369:tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
501:that is a bit stricter than only
44:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
2351:and left the following comment:
2089:
1735:
1625:
1584:
1132:what is currently a stub article
592:Please do not bite the newcomers
457:Thanks for taking time to reply!
184:
114:
99:
92:
39:Click here to start a new topic.
2432:! I did explain to you before,
2139:and submit your choices on the
1785:and submit your choices on the
1512:you can be right on your own. "
1461:because they get media coverage
1445:because they get media coverage
936:win one or more of the awards,
932:Thirdly, if and when the film
804:) 11:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC
1:
2347:, has reviewed it as part of
2231:10:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
2216:06:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
2164:00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2029:22:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
2009:20:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
1920:18:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
1866:17:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
1839:16:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
1810:01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
1610:09:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
1549:10:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
1530:18:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
1499:18:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
1435:17:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
1408:17:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
1361:16:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
1331:15:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
1257:14:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
1230:14:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
1189:13:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
1162:13:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
1144:13:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
1112:12:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
1055:16:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
1028:16:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
974:16:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
955:15:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
761:11:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
742:10:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
720:09:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
697:19:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
664:19:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
604:10:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
582:10:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
556:08:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
518:21:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
469:19:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
438:19:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
364:19:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
342:19:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
323:18:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
273:18:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
255:18:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
36:Put new text under old text.
1090:the recipient (Lea Carlson,
882:15:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
865:15:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
842:15:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
779:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
169:16:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
145:
2471:18:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
2423:18:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
2403:13:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
2384:20:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
2365:(Message delivered via the
1482:10th Canadian Screen Awards
1385:of their information about
1286:in the recipient's article.
945:be a change in the future.
2487:
2329:08:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
2307:06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
2297:I will keep it in my mind.
2287:19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
2251:17:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
2156:MediaWiki message delivery
2078:00:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
2055:20:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
1997:a bot added one was broken
1802:MediaWiki message delivery
1370:whether the award is even
1345:Oscars with www.oscars.org
1289:And I never said that the
898:unless it's an award that
220:page-specific restrictions
216:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies
153:We hope to see you there!
112:
2293:Thank you for explanation
1817:
1724:13:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
1697:18:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
1677:19:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
1655:14:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
1639:Thx for your help in the
1624:
1583:
1469:didn't get media coverage
1453:didn't get media coverage
74:Be welcoming to newcomers
2466:
2398:
2324:
2282:
2226:
2153:to your user talk page.
2073:
2004:
1861:
1799:to your user talk page.
1719:
1712:Knowledge (XXG):Teahouse
1672:
1525:
1430:
1356:
1252:
1184:
1139:
1050:
995:the fact, when somebody
969:
860:
801:
737:
692:
599:
551:
464:
442:Hi there A._C._Santacruz
433:
318:
259:I feel you need to read
2463:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
2395:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
2321:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
2279:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
2223:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
2070:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
2001:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
1934:I did not change either
1858:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
1716:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
1669:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
1522:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
1427:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
1353:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
1249:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
1244:subject you are working
1181:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
1136:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
1047:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
966:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
857:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
798:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
734:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
689:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
596:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
548:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
461:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
430:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
315:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
231:Arbitration Committee's
208:discretionary sanctions
125:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
21:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck
2439:why only for one show?
2357:
1942:this identical message
1240:reach out the next day
929:name of the category.
69:avoid personal attacks
2341:Bill Turnbull (actor)
2114:Arbitration Committee
2097:Hello! Voting in the
1760:Arbitration Committee
1743:Hello! Voting in the
1633:The Original Barnstar
1592:The Original Barnstar
2260:! As I explained on
2237:RE: data-sort-values
2204:opt-out instructions
1663:Thank-you very much
1598:Thanks for the tip!
1266:for use as sourcing.
1618:A barnstar for you!
1577:A barnstar for you!
1459:and everybody else
1451:be notable if they
1443:they're notable is
900:gets media coverage
819:Answering questions
2343:. Another editor,
2275:Filmography tables
2194:• Join us at the
2130:arbitration policy
1776:arbitration policy
1541:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
1216:with a proper one.
1177:I mentioned to you
1127:I mentioned to you
771:It seems to avoid
767:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
753:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
726:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
712:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
148:Visit the Teahouse
80:dispute resolution
41:
2370:
2199:
2186:usually incorrect
2184:. Such links are
2166:
2027:
1918:
1827:Darcy's Wild Life
1820:Darcy's Wild Life
1812:
1660:
1659:
1615:
1614:
1005:reliable sourcing
773:WP:Edit conflicts
748:WP:Edit conflicts
179:Important message
176:
175:
170:
166:
162:on behalf of the
90:
89:
60:Assume good faith
37:
2478:
2364:
2362:
2361:{{Re|North8000}}
2349:new pages patrol
2266:data-sort-values
2189:
2154:
2152:
2093:
2017:
1991:Reference style
1962:" I did mention
1908:
1903:
1897:
1893:
1887:
1800:
1798:
1739:
1653:
1651:
1648:
1629:
1622:
1621:
1608:
1606:
1603:
1588:
1581:
1580:
531:
526:
514:
509:
496:
490:
486:
480:
362:
360:
356:
352:
251:
246:
188:
168:
161:
155:
150:
138:
129:Be our guest at
118:
111:
110:
103:
96:
16:
2486:
2485:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2430:142.126.247.127
2415:142.126.247.127
2411:
2409:Data Sort Value
2337:
2295:
2270:sortable tables
2239:
2196:DPL WikiProject
2174:
2169:
2168:
2146:
2094:
2086:
2043:
1901:
1895:
1891:
1885:
1875:MOS:INFOBOXCITE
1823:
1815:
1814:
1792:
1740:
1732:
1706:! Looking into
1685:
1649:
1646:
1644:
1620:
1604:
1601:
1599:
1579:
1295:Knowledge (XXG)
1067:
912:reliable source
892:
880:
879:Blaze Wolf#6545
840:
839:Blaze Wolf#6545
821:
687:appreciate it.
632:
570:wp:battleground
529:
524:
512:
507:
494:
488:
484:
478:
359:Please ping me!
358:
354:
350:
348:
249:
244:
240:
239:
189:
181:
172:
171:
157:
151:
146:
134:
109:
104:
97:
86:
85:
55:
12:
11:
5:
2484:
2482:
2474:
2473:
2459:
2456:
2447:
2410:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2336:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2294:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2262:your talk page
2238:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2173:
2170:
2137:the candidates
2106:eligible users
2095:
2088:
2087:
2085:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2062:98.116.253.158
2047:98.116.253.158
2042:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2031:
1982:
1967:
1956:
1949:
1882:
1878:
1871:
1850:that this edit
1822:
1816:
1783:the candidates
1752:eligible users
1741:
1734:
1733:
1731:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1684:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1658:
1657:
1636:
1635:
1630:
1619:
1616:
1613:
1612:
1595:
1594:
1589:
1578:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1395:
1375:
1303:
1287:
1267:
1217:
1195:
1148:You literally
1092:The Exchange's
1066:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1042:specific rules
1012:
1008:
891:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
820:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
631:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
458:
455:
452:
449:
446:
443:
427:
424:
421:
418:
415:
412:
409:
406:
403:
400:
397:
394:
391:
388:
385:
382:
379:
376:
373:
344:
312:
309:
306:
303:
300:
297:
294:
288:
287:
286:
285:
190:
183:
182:
180:
177:
174:
173:
164:Teahouse hosts
152:
136:Blaze The Wolf
128:
121:
119:
108:
105:
98:
91:
88:
87:
84:
83:
76:
71:
62:
56:
54:
53:
42:
33:
32:
29:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2483:
2472:
2468:
2464:
2460:
2457:
2454:
2453:
2448:
2445:
2441:
2440:
2435:
2431:
2427:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2420:
2416:
2408:
2404:
2400:
2396:
2392:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2381:
2377:
2376:
2371:
2368:
2367:Page Curation
2356:
2352:
2350:
2346:
2342:
2334:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2318:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2311:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2292:
2288:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2271:
2267:
2263:
2259:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2236:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2200:
2197:
2193:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2171:
2167:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2150:
2144:
2143:
2138:
2133:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2119:
2115:
2110:
2108:
2107:
2102:
2101:
2092:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2040:
2030:
2025:
2021:
2016:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1988:
1983:
1980:
1976:
1971:
1968:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1954:
1950:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1936:. Please see
1935:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1916:
1912:
1907:
1900:
1890:
1883:
1879:
1876:
1872:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1821:
1813:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1796:
1790:
1789:
1784:
1779:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1756:
1754:
1753:
1748:
1747:
1738:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1661:
1656:
1652:
1642:
1638:
1637:
1634:
1631:
1628:
1623:
1617:
1611:
1607:
1597:
1596:
1593:
1590:
1587:
1582:
1576:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1537:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1396:
1393:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1301:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1268:
1265:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1218:
1215:
1210:
1206:
1201:
1196:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1064:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1016:WP:COMMONNAME
1013:
1009:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
982:
977:
976:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
958:
957:
956:
952:
948:
944:
939:
935:
930:
928:
924:
920:
915:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
889:
883:
877:
875:
874:
868:
867:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
845:
844:
843:
837:
835:
834:
828:
827:
818:
803:
799:
795:
792:
791:
790:
784:
780:
776:
774:
768:
764:
763:
762:
758:
754:
749:
745:
744:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
723:
722:
721:
717:
713:
709:
704:
700:
699:
698:
694:
690:
686:
681:
677:
674:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
662:
659:
658:
657:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
629:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
584:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
566:wp:disruptive
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
544:
540:
536:
532:
527:
521:
520:
519:
515:
510:
504:
500:
493:
483:
476:
472:
471:
470:
466:
462:
459:
456:
453:
450:
447:
444:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
428:
425:
422:
419:
416:
413:
410:
407:
404:
401:
398:
395:
392:
389:
386:
383:
380:
377:
374:
371:
367:
366:
365:
361:
353:
345:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:wp:disruptive
326:
325:
324:
320:
316:
313:
310:
307:
304:
301:
298:
295:
292:
291:
290:
289:
283:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
270:
266:
262:
257:
256:
252:
247:
238:
236:
232:
228:
223:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
200:
199:
197:
187:
178:
167:
165:
160:
156:Delivered by
149:
144:
142:
137:
132:
126:
120:
117:
113:
106:
102:
95:
81:
77:
75:
72:
70:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
51:
47:
46:Learn to edit
43:
40:
35:
34:
31:
30:
26:
22:
18:
17:
2451:
2450:
2438:
2437:
2412:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2358:
2354:
2338:
2296:
2258:70.54.53.237
2243:70.54.53.237
2240:
2201:
2178:Kay Tremblay
2175:
2140:
2134:
2111:
2104:
2098:
2096:
2044:
1984:
1979:AdamDeanHall
1974:
1969:
1959:
1952:
1933:
1929:
1881:distributor?
1846:AdamDeanHall
1831:AdamDeanHall
1824:
1786:
1780:
1757:
1750:
1744:
1742:
1686:
1632:
1591:
1517:
1513:
1508:
1485:
1477:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1457:The Exchange
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1421:
1417:
1391:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1371:
1367:
1348:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1299:
1294:
1290:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1263:
1213:
1208:
1204:
1199:
1172:someone else
1171:
1149:
1122:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1068:
1037:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
984:
980:
942:
937:
933:
931:
926:
922:
918:
916:
907:
903:
899:
895:
893:
890:The Exchange
872:
832:
825:
824:
822:
787:
786:
782:
778:
770:
684:
654:
653:
651:
633:
588:Slatersteven
574:Slatersteven
543:echo chamber
538:
535:Slatersteven
370:Slatersteven
334:Slatersteven
282:Slatersteven
265:Slatersteven
258:
241:
224:
201:
195:
193:
191:
154:
131:the Teahouse
124:
122:
2182:The Gazette
2142:voting page
2045:Ian Tracey
1788:voting page
1665:QuickQuokka
1463:, and they
1447:, and they
1264:appropriate
1100:third-party
1094:producers)
1065:Lea Carlson
261:wp:bludgeon
2206:. Thanks,
2190:(Read the
2126:topic bans
2066:Ian Tracey
2041:Ian Tracey
1772:topic bans
1473:determines
1387:everything
1368:determines
1311:acceptable
1309:that it's
873:Blaze Wolf
849:Blaze Wolf
833:Blaze Wolf
708:WP:PINGing
311:Take care,
2442:" I just
2434:see above
2391:North8000
2375:North8000
2355:Nice work
2345:North8000
2122:site bans
1938:this edit
1877:, etc...)
1768:site bans
1702:Hi there
1509:your view
1307:consensus
1291:Academy's
1284:mentioned
685:sincerely
680:VBulletin
671:Hi there
630:Indenting
368:Hi there
351:Santacruz
280:Hi there
233:decision
218:, or the
212:sanctions
82:if needed
65:Be polite
25:talk page
2020:contribs
1987:cite web
1946:Vidpro23
1911:contribs
1899:cite web
1889:cite web
1854:Vidpro23
1643:my man.
1641:teahouse
1465:couldn't
1449:wouldn't
1214:replaced
1071:reliable
923:official
908:replaced
499:WP:BLPRS
492:ds/aware
482:ds/alert
229:and the
194:It does
50:get help
19:This is
2317:Temuera
2310:Temuera
2299:Temuera
2208:DPL bot
2149:NoACEMM
1977:. When
1795:NoACEMM
1505:Bearcat
1491:Bearcat
1423:source.
1414:Bearcat
1400:Bearcat
1372:allowed
1337:Bearcat
1323:Bearcat
1319:noticed
1236:Bearcat
1222:Bearcat
1168:Bearcat
1154:Bearcat
1119:Bearcat
1104:Bearcat
1034:Bearcat
1020:Bearcat
1011:source.
997:notices
985:advance
962:Bearcat
947:Bearcat
826:correct
530:Neonate
513:Neonate
250:Neonate
159:HostBot
2428:Hello
2389:Hello
2315:Hello
2268:allow
2256:Hello
2060:Hello
2015:IJBall
1926:IJBall
1924:Hello
1906:IJBall
1844:Hello
1650:Quokka
1605:Quokka
1503:Hello
1441:reason
1412:Hello
1392:at all
1379:always
1335:Hello
1276:at all
1234:Hello
1205:before
1200:anyone
1166:Hello
1117:Hello
1083:either
1032:Hello
1007:rules.
989:before
981:anyone
960:Hello
927:common
896:at all
847:Hello
765:Hello
724:Hello
586:Hello
522:Hello
1989:}})."
1647:Quick
1602:Quick
1536:WP:RS
1315:fixed
1300:media
1209:after
1075:media
993:after
943:might
910:with
794:Cobra
676:Cobra
661:Cobra
525:Paleo
508:Paleo
503:WP:RS
245:Paleo
78:Seek
2467:talk
2419:talk
2399:talk
2380:talk
2325:talk
2303:talk
2283:talk
2247:talk
2227:talk
2212:talk
2160:talk
2112:The
2074:talk
2051:talk
2024:talk
2005:talk
1915:talk
1862:talk
1835:talk
1806:talk
1758:The
1720:talk
1693:talk
1673:talk
1545:talk
1526:talk
1516:does
1495:talk
1478:does
1431:talk
1404:talk
1381:get
1357:talk
1327:talk
1280:lieu
1253:talk
1226:talk
1185:talk
1158:talk
1150:said
1140:talk
1108:talk
1088:Both
1079:news
1051:talk
1024:talk
1001:okay
970:talk
951:talk
938:then
934:does
904:lieu
861:talk
802:talk
757:talk
738:talk
730:talk
716:talk
693:talk
600:talk
578:talk
552:talk
465:talk
434:talk
338:talk
319:talk
269:talk
235:here
141:talk
67:and
2192:FAQ
1944:on
1928:! "
1852:by
1416:! "
1383:all
1121:! "
1096:and
1036:! "
919:are
789:SVT
673:SVT
656:SVT
196:not
143:).
123:Hi
23:'s
2469:)
2421:)
2401:)
2382:)
2363:.
2327:)
2305:)
2285:)
2264:,
2249:)
2229:)
2214:)
2198:.)
2162:)
2151:}}
2147:{{
2124:,
2076:)
2053:)
2022:•
2007:)
1913:•
1902:}}
1896:{{
1892:}}
1886:{{
1864:)
1837:)
1808:)
1797:}}
1793:{{
1770:,
1722:)
1695:)
1675:)
1547:)
1528:)
1497:)
1433:)
1406:)
1359:)
1329:)
1272:be
1255:)
1228:)
1187:)
1160:)
1142:)
1110:)
1053:)
1026:)
972:)
953:)
863:)
759:)
740:)
718:)
695:)
602:)
580:)
554:)
516:–
495:}}
489:{{
485:}}
479:{{
467:)
436:)
340:)
321:)
271:)
253:–
48:;
2465:(
2449:"
2417:(
2397:(
2378:(
2323:(
2301:(
2281:(
2245:(
2225:(
2210:(
2158:(
2072:(
2049:(
2026:)
2018:(
2003:(
1958:"
1951:"
1917:)
1909:(
1860:(
1833:(
1804:(
1718:(
1691:(
1671:(
1543:(
1524:(
1493:(
1486:I
1429:(
1402:(
1355:(
1325:(
1251:(
1224:(
1183:(
1156:(
1138:(
1106:(
1049:(
1022:(
968:(
949:(
859:(
800:(
755:(
736:(
728:(
714:(
691:(
598:(
576:(
550:(
463:(
432:(
372:!
355:⁂
336:(
317:(
284:!
267:(
242:—
139:(
52:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
