User talk:Frederick/Archive 1
Contents
Welcome!
Hello, Frederick/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikisimpsons!
Thank you for your edits to the Mike's son article and taking an interest in our wiki. If you have any troubles, feel free to ask questions on any experienced editors' talk page. Also, you could look at a help page.
Here are a few pages to help out new editors such as yourself:
- Help pages, your first stop if you need any help
- Editing help, in case you have questions on how to properly edit articles
- Policy pages - Failure to abide by these will result in consequences.
Please sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your name and the date. Signing your comments is important, as it lets other editors know who has posted which comments.
Again, welcome! ☆The Solar Dragon (Talk - Contribs.)☆ 10:21, 25 November 2011 (EST)
Great work
Hey, I would just like to thank you for all your great work recently. Keep this up and you'll be in with a chance to win the Golden Homer this month. Thanks, The Solar Dragon 16:48, 4 December 2011 (EST)
- Really, no kidding? This is really great, thank you Solar Dragon. --Freddie (Talk) 5:31, 5 December 2011 (PST)
Question ... ?
Did you talk to anybody before you started cutting guest star articles to the bare bones? I'm just trying to understand what you're up to. If the idea is to keep the focus of the articles on the show, that's fine, and that's an ideal I've been guilty of straying from myself. I freely admit to having a tendency toward long-windedness at the keyboard. :-) All the same, a couple of extra facts about the guest are fine ... just enough to answer the question of "Why was it such a big deal that the person appeared on the show?" Anyway, good to have you here; I'm just curious about where you're coming from in making the changes. As for where I'm coming from, please have a look at the Project Guest Stars and Project Self Voicers pages. -- Mythigator 20:48, 10 December 2011 (EST)
- You have a huge point and I guess I kind of agree, but only kind of. You see it isn't related to The Simpsons if you're telling what else they have been in. Do you see where I am going with this? --Freddie (Talk) 17:54, 10 December 2011 (PST)
- Perfectly. But that doesn't mean you have to strike out EVERYTHING that's non-Simpsons-related. Another thing to consider is that while there is certainly some fat to be trimmed, a fair amount of work goes into putting those facts together. Unilaterally deleting a bunch of material with no explanation gives the impression of a lack of respect for whoever did the work in the first place. However, now that I know what you're doing and what you're trying to accomplish, it's cool. The only criticism I'll offer is that you could be a little less heavy-handed with the red pen. For example, in the Johnny Carson article, I added back in the fact that he's best known for having hosted The Tonight Show. If someone who doesn't know anything at all about him is wondering "Who the hell is Johnny Carson?" then that little fact, plus appropriate links, gets the crucial information across while maintaining a Simpsons focus. I guess I'm just saying "keep a balance". For an example, I'll do a trim job on the article for Buzz Aldrin, which I wrote, BTW. That should demonstrate what I'm talking about. -- Mythigator 01:15, 11 December 2011 (EST)
- Totally see where you are going with this and I agree. --Freddie (Talk) 10 December 2011, 10:51 (PST)
- Excellent! Thanks for being willing to dialogue about this. Just as a heads-up to you, I am also going to add back in one fact about Theodore Roosevelt. The other trimming you did there was just fine, though. Happy editing and talk to you later, and if you have any questions at all, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Peace out (and go 'Nucks!). -- Mythigator 02:22, 11 December 2011 (EST)
- Totally see where you are going with this and I agree. --Freddie (Talk) 10 December 2011, 10:51 (PST)
- Perfectly. But that doesn't mean you have to strike out EVERYTHING that's non-Simpsons-related. Another thing to consider is that while there is certainly some fat to be trimmed, a fair amount of work goes into putting those facts together. Unilaterally deleting a bunch of material with no explanation gives the impression of a lack of respect for whoever did the work in the first place. However, now that I know what you're doing and what you're trying to accomplish, it's cool. The only criticism I'll offer is that you could be a little less heavy-handed with the red pen. For example, in the Johnny Carson article, I added back in the fact that he's best known for having hosted The Tonight Show. If someone who doesn't know anything at all about him is wondering "Who the hell is Johnny Carson?" then that little fact, plus appropriate links, gets the crucial information across while maintaining a Simpsons focus. I guess I'm just saying "keep a balance". For an example, I'll do a trim job on the article for Buzz Aldrin, which I wrote, BTW. That should demonstrate what I'm talking about. -- Mythigator 01:15, 11 December 2011 (EST)
IRC
Come join me! We'll have a chat ;) --Will (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2011 (EST)
