Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cartoon Network/Archive 3

message: We all need to keep a close eye on it.  I nominated all the character pages for all the Billy and Mandy characters for merge with the List of Billy and Mandy characters page, except for Billy, Mandy, Grim, and Irwin.  User:Black Rhino Ranger keeps removing the suggestion for merge tag because he wants to keep the page. His reason is because "Because I want to give Fred fredburger his own article back. Sob sob".  Is there a way to get an admin to stop him from removing it and adding cruft to it? (He keeps adding stuff like "List of Foods that Fred Fredburger likes to eat".  I've explained to him the situation and it keeps getting removed.  Suggestions? DietLimeCola 06:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Best policy with dealing with over-zealous editors is to leave them the usual warning templates on their talkpage going up the levels until you can bring in a admin to ban them. I'd suggest using ,  and . I doubt you can issue warnings retrospectively though if you feel that you can hunt through their non-constructive edits and give warnings for those specifically then do so. It's not totally necessary to do that though, just helps if an admin needs to check if they are just being pointless or not. There's not enough warnings on their talkpage to warrant an AIV and will be watching the article closely just to see if I need to issue a warning also. --treelo talk 17:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fred Fredburger]] 

message: Seeing as this page has turned into "Did I do right?" central for less-than-bold editors (told you, didn't I?) over being the discussion area for the actual maintaining of the project I figured I'll wade in as the designated area I did want to use won't be used and as such put up for speedy deletion.  Anyway, cut a lot from List of characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey, mainly way minor one-shot or recurring but non-speaking background characters. Even though I did this for the benefit of this frequently edited article, I anticipate either a revert or it to refill after a while with more garbage from multiple one sentence IP editors. --treelo talk 01:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, well, I guess we'll see how long it lasts. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 09:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit. 

message: I should be maintaining these specific articles (and probably a few others) but sadly irate animé fans, revert-happy sole editors and the general illiterate and misinformed make me feel like I shouldn't bother due to a status quo being employed by its' single recurring editor where it doesn't matter how long your lists get, opinionated parts are via weasel terminology or how your bad spelling and grammar affects you when trying to sound smart. Pff. --treelo talk 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When having a conflict with someone, remind them of the rules of Wikipedia.  Most of them never read them or probably even considered that there were any rules.  Most of the time if they find out what they are doing is wrong, they'll stop.  If they keep doing it, then it's time to call an admin in. DietLimeCola 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have done that and given it's only one editor specifically who edits out of a couple of IP editors  and one person who I know personally has a history of being a jackass elsewhere makes it much more likely that I'll ignore the articles in question. Maybe I just tire of editing things that'll just get undone or ignored, do you see how many templates one of those articles gained? Forget it, I need the co=operation of a much more thorough and dare I say, more seasoned editor to cut out the crap and kiddybanter and have the articles without bias, trivia masquerading as importance or never-ending lists of programming. Actually, given the length of the section within Cartoon Network (Worldwide) (which is nearly word for word the meaningful content for the main article it links to) I'd reckon it shouldn't even have an article. --treelo talk 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I'm not editing that!" 

message: I feel like delegating so here's the scoop. 
* We need a taskforce to get about, assess and classify our articles correctly, I do go on about this but it's needed if we're to use what this project has to use to it's fullest extent.
* New recruitment drive as what we got right now is pretty shabby though really one would be useless given how few good editors for any CN articles exist, a few do namely NoseNuggets and DamnCartoonGuy, both of which would be good to get them attached at least and I reckon there's a few others so have a root about in page histories and see if you can find someone who's contributions are mostly for CN articles and ask them.
* Use and update the to-do list as it really does need using properly and helps target areas.
* Get any templates or infobox layouts that are used by our pages and get them categorised within :Category:Cartoon Network templates.
If we can get this working, we might see a better running project come a months time. --treelo talk 15:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I doubt we will. Each time I suggest anything that we should do besides do the obvious I get stonewalled and lose faith in our ability to do little besides just clean up cruft. It's impossible to raise morale, nobody ever says anything but for once I'd like others to give a damn. --treelo talk 00:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reading the comments, I'm just not replying to them, so I give a damn.  Sorry if I didn't make it obvious. DietLimeCola 21:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't but seeing as that's two people in as many weeks we've lost, we probably should be talking seeing as it's kinda needed right now. --treelo talk 10:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks I'm sure. --treelo talk 10:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention! 

message: There's an active content dispute about the Powerpuff Girls article, could you look it over and provide help with resolving it? Thanks. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active dispute 

message: The project is dying somewhat and I'll be damned if it becomes inactive through apathy and nothing else. Not like no edits occur on CN articles, several do every day but there's no overall taskforces identifying weak spots, crummy recurring editing mistakes and generally rewriting articles from the top down if necessary to bring the quality of articles up. I didn't take being co-ordinator through a power vacuum or anything else, I took it because the vast majority of the articles are complete crap and dammit, what's wrong with wanting even one good article at least on a subject you give a damn about because you know it well enough to be passionate and right about it? I feel I've done a great deal for the project in getting the groundwork for a well-functioning project going but never have I felt much of it mattered. Nobody cares for assessments, to-do lists, peer reviews or project taskforces. Heck, nobody cares for many articles because of the odd way I've noticed just how many CN shows polarise viewers to only one show instead of many. That stinks to me, it's killing our project due to possibly something as simple as having a CN project being too vague or wide an interest. People will jump at the chance to help handle KND, FHIF or GABM articles under their own project but ask them to do it under a CN banner and people will back away a bit because of what it implies, editing articles on shows they don't know squat about. It isn't that though, do your area of knowledge but do it well, that's all I want and I expect that's all the other editors connected to the project want too.
It's not just issues on articles, issues on articles can be kept to the talkpages of said articles for now (or to the talkpage I wanted for just that purpose). Talk of the project just to make it work until it can run near autonomously is needed more, right here, right now. Sure, it's all about the articles but the project is the thread that should run through them all, keeping them in good shape, making sure consensus on edit disputes are made, checking and citing information and generally being the guardian of the articles. Right now, it's the Wild West out there as any edit goes irregardless of if it's true, notable or even grammatically correct, I aim to change that. What I want is at least five good, bold editors who can act as near administrators to our articles and keep the peace on their patch of turf because that's exactly what I feel the project should be, the QA for its' articles, if we fail, the articles fail also. Might be hard finding them but I know there's some out there who can do it with time and dedication. I have plans and will outline them if anyone wishes to hear them, I may have said I don't do this due to lack of interest but even one person talking it through with me and others can make the difference. --treelo talk 01:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added myself to the membership of this project. If you look at my edit history, I've been trying to clean up the Camp Lazlo articles, among other CN articles. Unfortunately, some of these look to be in need of a top-down rewrite (i.e., the episodes table format is inconsistent from season to season; the episode summaries are simply too wordy). Yngvarr 22:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then, I'm moving on from the MGPAM articles as they just are painful to maintain and will let someone else cut the rot out. Camp Lazlo articles have always been a concern and your contribs are good enough that I'll try and co-ordinate edits with you so they work out seeing as I'm gaining more knowledge on other shows and feel I could rewrite some of the more inconsistent articles. --treelo talk 17:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The State of the Project 

message: May I suggest that the Participants subsection on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon Network be changed so that instead of asking for User:Username to use the user template ? This will allow Talk and Contribs to show up next to the name. Yea, sometimes I'm nosy :P Yngvarr 15:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, sounds more logical and helps check on members to make sure they're actually worthwhile to us. Not like anyone actually pays attention to the conditions I'd like for people to use but what can I do? --treelo talk 16:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants sub-section 

message: By the look of this talk page I see only one more section has been made since the last inspection. Plus I see that theres been two more archives added. Also on while on youtube I noticed some videos have been removed because Cartoon Network put a copyright claim on the site. Similar to the Viacom lawsuit. Do any of you suppose that could become a problem soon here? To my knowledge there have been no official press releases on the matter. Driveus  —The preceding  signed but undated. 
: I also noticed that youtube now only has episode clips, rather than full episodes. I do recall seeing an article regarding the copyright issues on Youtube. The closest I could fine is , and the dates would coincide. Yngvarr 10:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montly Inspection August 

message: Don't know if it'd be impractical given the stupid, stupid nature of my severely outdated and incomplete assessment sub-project but do you think it'd be a practical idea to push some of our better articles forward for peer review? Help to clean up our B-class articles. I've put forward Dexter's Laboratory and The Powerpuff Girls being the much older and popular of the shows we handle but are there any others which could benefit? --treelo talk 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any of the older, out of production, shows should also be good for submitting, if only because they tend to be more "stable". Quite a few of the older original shows are still aired. Cow & Chicken, Johnny Bravo. While not necessarily a cartoon, The Cartoon Cartoon Show is significant. Maybe pushing a peer review on troublesome articles like MPGAM would actually be good, and make a visible impression to those anon editors who want to fill things up with nonsense... Yngvarr 16:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then, consider putting them forward because I want to see how these first two go before adding more personally. You're free to put forward any of the pre-98 shows due to their stability and also I'd like to be able to class them correctly. --treelo talk 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've submitted Cow & Chicken for now: Wikipedia:Peer review/Cow & Chicken/archive1 Yngvarr 00:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's an idea... 

message: Hello everyone. I guess I've got nothing to do at youtube anymore so I decided to come back here and maybe keep an eye on some articles. I've made some Cartoon Network related edits in the past few days (mostly reverts). I might not be one of those dedicated editors Treelo expects/wants but I thought I'd do something other than just make meaningless inspections. Plus I want to lay down the law on some who vandalise pages with junk. Hope this decision is okay with you lot. Driveus 10:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, the inspections were alright and kept the talkpage alive but better to have you around as and when we need you. As for my expectation/want for dedicated editors, we got plenty which barely fit near-active, never mind dedicated so work with what you got I suppose.  --treelo talk 11:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting Abit More Active Myself