User talk:Cresix

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Cresix; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis

Wait. I have not violated copyright.--EeuHP (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand you. I've modified a photo of another user. That picture is licensed. Where I've violated copyright?--EeuHP (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Then, the other user is not the author of the photo? He put a invalid license? That means I have modified a material that violates copyright and therefore I am accused of violating copyright?--EeuHP (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Did not understand why I was accused, but if the photo of the other user violated the rules, I understand. Next time I will focus more on the quality of the licenses.--EeuHP (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Insomnia

Hi. I don't understand the basis for this revert. There have been a lot of junk edits recently apparently as part of some classroom project, but that edit actually strikes me as valid and well-sourced. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard. There's a class dumping on psychology + related articles. They are told to add two sourced facts to articles on Wikipedia. Often their citation is to the University of Toronto intranet. We are trying to get them to stop and have been for two years! Colin°^Talk 21:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

My reply. Janus Savimbi (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment about user warning

Hi Cresix! I see you recently posted {{uw-npa1}} on User talk:Sluffs, but I don't see where you removed any of Sluff's comments from Talk:The Beatles. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Anorexia nervosa

Just a note to say I've requested childhood obesity be semi protected. We may need to add others. See the education noticeboard (above). Btw, your revert here mentions "Sources that require registration or payment are not acceptable". The actual source, the BMJ, is absolutely fine. Books require payment, remember :-). The URL the editor gave was to a version on their campus internet, a mistake that this class keep making. Sometimes they only give the url, which is impossible to use or decode so effectively no citation at all. But here they have a citation, only the url is useless. As is typical, the text is in the wrong section completely. And I'd place money on it being a copyvio. So your revert was fine, just the wrong reason given. Colin°^Talk 22:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For maintaining Wikipedia's quality in the face of an educational program. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Jackie Evancho

Would you kindly weigh in on this discussion? I'd like to hear your opinion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Metacritic

What about just saying simply "score" instead of "weighted average rating", which I don't consider it to be a rating at all in the least. I think like they think, which they call it a "score" i.e. metascore. Oh, we could say they have assigned a metascore of 76 based on 10 reviews, which the breakdown is seven positive to three neutral and no negative ratings. This is about Wheelhouse, for your information.HotHat (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay.HotHat (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Listing themes in wiki

I saw all your posts about correct citation in Wikipidia and avoiding original research. However, I see multiple instances of lists of themes around wiki. It's not interpretation if the source material fully supports the theme in the list, in my opinion. Happy to start a discussion. Wiki can serve as a great foundation for diving into the meaning of books, movies and shows. Since all editors can make adjustments, if something is not supported by the facts, then it absolutely should be removed. If someone can't refute the theme or the image, then why isn't it part of the facts that make up the body of work, and as such should be on the wiki page?

Also, shouldn't editors balance what they remove with what they add? If not, they take away the value of wiki.

Other theme lists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Midsummer_Night%27s_Dream

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_men

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_peaks