Talk:List of submissions to the 87th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film

Flags
Like in previous years, this page has been vandalized by a user who insists on removing flags, which MOS:FLAGS permits for international competitions such as this one. Other examples including sporting events like the Olympics and beauty pageants like Miss Universe.

The user in question has repeatedly added misinformation. Last year, he repeatedly added a poorly sourced fake Argentine shortlist to the page even though three users told him it was fake. He also removed accurate two submissions (Albania and Indonesia) that I had added, and then re-added them himself.

To add insult to injury, this year, he accused me of violating WP:BRD, saying that I should not have changed his edits without a reason and that previous editions of this page did not have flags. The reason for this is that he has deleted flags that used to be there!! He is the one who has violated WP:BRD in the first place. It's maddening.

I contacted Wikipedia for arbitration and I received a response that this minor issue does not rise to that level. I am reluctantly inclined to agree.

Could somebody please help stop this user from vandalizing the page and spreading misinformation?


 * Non of the previous editions of these articles contain flags in the other countries section. So what if the Olympics and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS have them? The page was created without flags in that section, with several other editors adding info without the need to add them, before you arrive and try to impose this. Please read (and get a) WP:CONSENSUS before making this change again. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The only reason the other previous editions of these articles do not contain flags is that the vandalizing editor in question (Lugnuts) deleted them! They were there when I created these pages a few years ago. However, about three years ago, he altered all the pages when I pointed out that I was adding flags for consistency. Please check his edits from September 24, 2012! In other words, Lugnuts is changing pages that I created (which he has the right to do if he feels he is improving them...Wikipedia allows all users to edit in good faith). But he then says I am vandalizing them when I change them back. Lugnuts DID NOT ask for WP:CONSENSUS when he deleted all the flags from previous pages (and which I acknowledge I do not own). Therefore, there is no justification why I cannot change his vandalizing edits from this page (which he fails to understand that he does not own). I have given a justification why flags are allowed.

Please also note that I only edit the page when I have REAL updated and pertinent information to add. The other User edits just to delete my submissions. And he uses abusive langauge in his comments. For anyone reading, please examine the evidence and see who the real vandal is.


 * Wrong again, Anthony. You need to build a consenus. You are close to being blocked too. The article now mirrors all the other editions. Take that to Wiki arbitration and see what they say too!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * See also List of submissions to the 80th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film and List of submissions to the 77th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film - two articles I've had no involvment in, both have similar "other country" sections (albeit as "notes"), both without flags, and both are Featured Lists. Looks like that is the standard we should be looking towards getting to - in other words, a clear consensus.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the Other User keeps changing his arguments when proved wrong. First, he says MOS:FLAGS is the justification. When I repeatedly pointed out how MOS:FLAGS allows this for pages like this (this goes back years), he brings up WP:BRD. As I understand it, WP:BRD essentially states that you should not change a perfectly good page that users work off of just because you feel like it. However, that is what the Other User did in 2012 when he changed all previous editions of these pages in response to a similar argument that we having now. He went back and changed old editions of the page going back to at least 2009 that had been completed and perfectly okay. That is the very definition of a WP:BRD violation. But I refused to get involved in disputes over old pages. Now, he is using abusive language (this year it was about low IQ, last year making jokes about Nazis). Please note that this user has a history of re-adding false information to these pages even when told it is false (check last year, September 25 and 26, regarding Argentina). Please note that this Other User (I have no idea to research his real first name like he did mine, which is spooky) does not own this page. Please also note that the other editor has, in the past, asked me for help in sourcing these pages, which I have happily and willingly provided. Please also note I only edit the page when I have helpful information (other submissions) and never just to undo Other User's edits. Doing so (as he does) would violate WP:BRD, which he does willy-nilly. User:Adtran [[User talk:Adtran]|undefined 4:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll go through the warning template on your userpage:

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at List of submissions to the 87th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Please raise the above change on the talkpage to gain a WP:CONSENSUS.

Simply you need to gain a consensus on your editing. You now face being blocked. Thanks. Addressing the issue of addressing you by your name, you disclosed this on your talkpage!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia. Lugnuts is violating Wikipedia's guidelines (NOTE: not policy as Wikipedia has no formal policy on this issue) on Bullying (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EverSince/Policy_bullying On Wikipedia Policy bullying is an editor using Wikipedia policies in order to get their own way against the spirit of Wikipedia. This can include unnecessarily and excessively citing policies, giving an impression of being an authority on policy regardless of whether policies do actually support a position. It msy involve interpreting or applying policies in a particular way, but implying that it is simply the policy, and that they are black and white matters. There may be a habit of putting others down and/or boosting the self through negative comments relating to some Wikipedia policy.)

Please look at my edits. I always add useful information, while the other user adds false information. Lugnuts acknowledges the accuracy and correctness of my edits by leaving them alone, and concentrating on formatting. On the flag issue, we both clearly believe we are correct. In fact, we may BOTH be correct as Wikipedia arbitrators essentially said as much. That would mean we both have the right to add and delete flags. However, unlike him I am not undoing his vandalism edits now. I will only do so when I have relevant updated information to share with the Wikipedia community. I suggest that he also only undo my edits when he has something productive to share. User:Adtran [[User talk:Adtran]|undefined 15:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "In fact, we may BOTH be correct as Wikipedia arbitrators essentially said as much." Which is why we retain the current format until a WP:CONSENSUS (that word again) is shown that it should be changed. Looking at the edit history of the 80th article, it was rewritten by Sephiroth BCR, another user who removed all the flags in that section, and got the article to Featured List status. Same with the 77th edition too. These became the standard and hence why all the ones since then have followed the same flag-free format. Your constant reverting is disruptive to the project and unwelcomed. You face a long ban if you continue with this nonsense. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done some research. I talked to a Administrator formally who said that I have to keep "speaking to the User in question". We both know that neither one of us owns any of these pages. I do not own the ones that I created and you do not own the ones that you created. You are not an Administrator. There is no reason you have given or that I can see that you are the "rule of this page".

As for your bullying threats of a ban, I am merely trying to return the pages to the original form before you changed them without going through WP:CONSENSUS. I was informally told today that while a ban might initially take effect, upon appeal real Administrators will take a look (though this may take time) and see what really happened. They will see that my edits and updates to the page are productive and not vandalism. I was told that this will be proven by the fact that you actually DO NOT delete my edits. You steal the information that I have researched in multi-language sites and you delete the flags and claim it is vandalism. Vandalism is defined as "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism...Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." Indeed, I thought what you were doing was vandalism. In fact, since I am not sure if your actions are in bad faith, I cannot conclude you are vandalizing the page. You claim my edits are vandalism in your notes, but in fact you retain the substance and change the style.

Incidentally, prior users in previous years have noted the page looks better with flags, and MOS:FLAGS clearly allows them. I'm not sure about the other user, but I know that in 2012 during a previous dispute, I pointed out that prior pages had flags for YEARS. And then you changed them and said they didn't. So, I am endeavouring to return pages to their original form.

Once again, unlike you, I do not make stylistic edits unless I have substantive updates to make. All the flags disappear by October 1 anyway, so really this is a Kafkaesque discussion.

If an Administrator informs me that I am wrong and that you are right and that you have the sole ability to edit this page, then I will be forced to bow down.

Incidentally, anyone reviewing these pages will also see that I have always been respectful and always cited sources, while the Other User in question has constantly acting in a bullying, disrespectful manner.

User:Adtran [[User talk:Adtran]|undefined 11:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a mighty pretty speach. Now take your head out of your arse and ask yourself: "How many other editors add the flags in that section?" The correct answer is none. Have a think about that.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Previous years
Going through previous years, most years use a much more inferior table format. I haven't been involved very much with these articles, and I'd love to help out because the subject matter interests me, but hopefully those tables can be brought into uniformity with the current style. Jmj713 (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Any help with that would be great. Also some of the country lists are in bad shape (Denmark, for example). Nice work in starting the Moldova list too!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. When I started creating these pages, a few countries had already been created by Wikipedia users. Instead of changing the format, I generally left those alone. I believe these were Denmark, Iceland and Thailand but there may have been some others.

User:Adtran [[User talk:Adtran]|undefined 05:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Singapore
1. Wikipedia guidelines specify that instead of deleting questionable information, you should flag them and request a source. However, in this case, a RS (Reliable Source) was provided. 2. With regards to using Facebook as a reliable source, Wikipedia says this: "As a reliable source: Sometimes. The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources.)" User Lugnuts deleted true, verified information from Albania and Indonesia last year while constantly re-adding a fake shortlist from India last year that THREE users deleted. This year, he continues his antics. I have informed him twice that his poorly sourced story on India is false (there are 30 films being considered, not 8) but instead of deleting the false story, he deletes the true information about Argentina and Singapore. The user does not own the page, though I did hope that he would correct his false India information himself.

User:Adtran [[User talk:Adtran]|undefined 05:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Fails WP:RS. Surely some third-party independent coverage is available? There is no deadline.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Actually Singapore did not fail. Self-published sources are allowed if they are the official page of the source. It passed and it was true.

There is actually a lot of chatter on the Internet saying that the UK story about the submission of "Little Happiness" is false. I myself have absolutely no opinion and no knowledge as to whether it is true or not. BAFTA has certainly not made any announcement. Since you have added it, I must believe that you have verified that it is true since you deleted true information about Singapore. However, since you've added false information about India two years in a row, it shows you care little about truth and are gullible about sources which is worrying. User:Adtran [[User talk:Adtran]|undefined 14:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Stop with your personal attacks. When you can be an adult, I'll consider talking to you. Until then, you're a child and to be ignored.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Hilarious. I have kept a record of all the things you have said (including making jokes about Nazis, which is unbelievably offensive + low IQ). I have been polite and civil the whole time and have also not added any false information. BTW thank you for copying and pasting what I wrote about Ghadi last year to this year's page. User:Adtran [[User talk:Adtran]|undefined 13:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I wrote it. Read WP:BRD - you need to gain a consensus on your childish changes. Your failure to gain a consensus speaks volumes about your editing with your IP sock accounts too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * So looks like you were wrong. Again. Doesn't matter one bit about BAFTA making the announcement or not. So take your "gullible about sources" comment and shove it with your mis-informed edits.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of submissions to the 87th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oscars.org/aboutacademyawards/history02.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/rules/87/pdf/87aa_rules.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208011732/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of submissions to the 87th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140917225004/http://www.laprensa.com.bo/diario/entretendencias/cultura/20140917/olvidados-e-yvy-maraey-buscan-nominacion-al-oscar-y-los_60782_100482.html to http://www.laprensa.com.bo/diario/entretendencias/cultura/20140917/olvidados-e-yvy-maraey-buscan-nominacion-al-oscar-y-los_60782_100482.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

>>>FYROM
The name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is used here. Should it be left that way, or updated to "North Macedonia"? I don't think that North Macedonia ever actually used the FYROM name for itself. Now, I know that North Macedonia was not called that back when the film was released, but does that matter? It's not a different country now just because its official name is different. Kelisi (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)