Talk:Chelsea Kane

message: According to the August 2008 issue of Cosmogirl!, in the interview with Vanessa Hudgens, she accidentally spilled that Chelsea Staub is dating Joe Jonas. Should we add that in? ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumors? 

message: A while back, someone put that she had died...in Joe Jonas' house. And people frequently vandalize her page for some reason. Should we lock it?--Wreckedd08 (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock? 

message: WP:DATESNO and WP:ENDASH make it clear that endashes should be used in the film-table. Edits to the contrary should be reverted. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That interpretation of the MOS is currently being discussed, and is not generally accepted. Nevertheless, I note that you have reverted an edit that was completely compliant with even your interpretation of WP:DATESNO and WP:ENDDASH. That would seem to indicate that your primary intent is to edit-war rather than solve the problem. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not by /you/. The problem is resolved by using proper endashes. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem was resolved. You chose to undo an edit, intentionally making the table less compatible. Do you have any explanation? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gimmetoo, perhaps it's time for you to join the modern age and upgrade your browser (and your computer, if necessary). You won't be sorry, believe me; I switched fron Internet Explorer to Firefox a few months ago, and it is so much better.  Also, you will have then time for more productive things other than monitoring these tables to keep people from modernising them. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 on the above by Dianna. Gimmetoo, you are also well on your way to becoming pointy, as well as violating 3RR. Nymf hideliho! 19:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not make this personal, as your comments could be taken as personal attacks. This is an issue for readers, some of whom use this browser. If certain editors would stop undoing any fix whatsoever, there wouldn't be a problem. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should be blocked if you do not stop your edit warring. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  less compatible with a browser that very few people still use? So what? It's not worth the deviation from normal usage. There are lots of dead browsers that should not be bothered with. The web turned twenty the other day; should the mosaic browser be supported? (rhetorical question alert). --168.122.165.145 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please refrain from anything that might be considered a personal attack. Now, can you respond to my question. There are numerous simple fixes to make the table compatible, yet certain editors undo every one of them. Repeatedly. Essentially always. Why would that be? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Saying that you should be blocked is not a personal attack; quit making things up. I /did/ respond to your question: I said that your fix should not be bothered with for a dead browser. That's a very good reason to restore the standard emdashes. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you intentionally and consciously want to make the table less compatible with that browser, no matter what type of fix might be used to make the table compatible? Is that correct? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't put words in my mouth. Supporting your browser is not worth the deviation from normal conventions; almost no one uses various old browsers, time to move forward, not make a few articles quirky. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Supporting the browser is trivial. There are quite a few fixes that are simple to do, comparable to fixing a typo. If you would stop undoing every possible fix for this issue (and I have tried quite a few now), eventually one of them would be standard. Tell me clearly why you undo every single possible fix I make for this issue? Why are none of them acceptable, even ones that conform to your interpretation of the MOS? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The /fix/ is to use any common browser. Your use of 'to' is non-standard and at odds with normal typographical usage in English; kindly quit pushing it. I've said this about a half dozen times, counting edit summaries: don't be obtuse. I see others saying about the same thing @you, too. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Way to go, you add more distraction info the MOS page. Do you really want to discuss non-MOS issues there? Now let me reiterate - some of the fixes for this issue do comply with even your interpretation of the Manual of Style, and yet you don't allow those either. Even if you don't think a userbase around 1% justifies any change to table formats, you're actively impeding another editor making a fix - comparable to changing a typo - that complies with even your interpretion of the MOS. Do you have any explanation for that? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, the /typo/ is anything other than the proper endash between years (or putting years in the *notes* column). Multiple people have reverted you and no one is leaping to support your view. Drop this and accept that trying to /support/ dead browsers is a Sisyphean effort. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only people "reverting" me are you and your crew, and occasional editors who are unfamiliar with the issue. Once it is explained, they stop impeding the fixes. Only you and your crew actively impede improvement. Tell me clearly and unambiguously why you actively oppose any sort of fix whatsoever, even when you don't have to do anything? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow. Am I part of that crew? What about the people you have been fighting with about this for a year? Are they also part of that same crew? Nymf hideliho! 17:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nymf, can you give a clear, policy-based explanation for intentionally and actively impeding other editors fixing this technical issue? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  He must mean this kind of crew, where a coxswain gets everyone going in the correct direction. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not so much. I asked Nymf for a policy-based reason for reverting and actively impeding other editors on this issue. Nymf has conspicuously failed to do so, and as such the prima facie case is that there is none. If there is no policy-based reason, then is there any other reason but behavioural? You have claied to revert based on WP:DATESNO, but a clarification discussion is going against you. Unless that trend changes, it means that any further reverts you do on that basis will be inappropriate. Do you have any policy-based reason for your reverts? Anything at all? User:Gimmetoo|Gimmetoo]] (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's pathetic. I've explained that a plain endash is simply most appropriate at least a half dozen times, that supporting a dead browser is a fool's game. No one is supporting your position in that discussion; your merely asserting that it's going /your/ way is laughable. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have appealed to MOS to undo anything but dashes. The discussion at MOS was not supporting your interpretation. Tony, however, has recently posted something that may support your position. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  endashes