User talk:Fsm83/Archive 1

Mila Kunis
Talking to each other through edit summaries. Very amusing. Thanks for your response.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw the picture swapping. Someone else - can't remember who and too lazy to research - put in that more recent picture of her at the top. I think I reverted it, but I can't remember on what basis. Maybe because it was a dupe, and I wasn't as nice as you and didn't swap the pictures. I realize that the "new" picture is more recent, but I really preferred the way it was. The 2008 picture of her is really classy. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * First, as an aside, I changed your Talk page so it wasn't bolded throughout. I hope you don't mind. If you do, you can revert my change or ask me to change it back, and I will. Second, I want you to know how much I appreciate all of your hard work on Kunis, regardless of any comments I may make in the current discussion. I know how hard it is to spend that much time in a sincere effort to improve the quality of an article and then have your work undone. It's true that, as editors, we don't own the articles we work on, but we're also human, and it's natural to take some pride in our work. Finally, just a couple of small points. When you respond to people's comments, try to use the indent character (colon) appropriately, so people can see to whom you are responding. Also, don't mark your edits to the Talk page as minor unless you're really making a minor change (like a typo or something). I didn't want to say all this "in public" on the Kunis Talk page, which is why I'm mentioning it here. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments, and figured it was best if I respond here. Hopefully I am using the (colon) correctly here. Let me know if I am not. It is extremely frustrating to put in a great deal of time and effort to improve a page, and then have someone who visits the page for the first time in a year deem some of your work unnecessary or against the wiki policy. I find that ridiculous. But as I mentioned I am not going to spend my time in debates with this editor. I do appreciate you recognizing that it is hard work. And although it is not "my personal page" you do take pride in trying to improve a page and making it more informative and interesting. As I said in my response on the page you can go to a variety of actor pages and find similar types of quotes and information. In fact some of the ideas I used, including the (quote box) came from viewing other actor sites that were even given the wiki seal of approval as being good articles. There was a definite part of me that wanted to take him on quote for quote, because I do disagree with him on several points, but again, I'm just not going to go down that road. It is a road that will have no end. I stand by what I said, the majority of the edit changes were an opinion change, and not a violation. But I will just continue to look at ways to constructively improve the page when I can. Fsm83 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved your comments here (rather on my Talk page) so we can keep it all in one place. I'll watch your Talk page (at least for now) so you can feel free to add comments as you like here. Each colon causes one indent level, so notice that I added three colons to your comment and four colons to mine. I noticed you added a second colon on my Talk page, so it looks like you've got the hang of it.


 * Back to editing and Kunis. One of the problems with Wikipedia is that editorial changes and even policy interpretations are not evenly enforced. So, you're correct that on other people's articles, a lot of the information may be similar to the kinds of information you added. Unfortunately, that kind of uneven enforcement doesn't stop editors from stepping in and "correcting" one article, even though the editor is probably aware that the supposed "violation" or "inappropriate" information occurs other places. In defense of the changing editor, though, it's almost impossible to police all pages and make everything perfect, so if an editor feels a change is appropriate, she has the right to make the change. However, I also agree with you that some of the Kunis changes aren't black and white. Therefore, editors will differ on what's appropriate and what's not. So, it's commendable of you to step back and allow NS's changes to remain, but that shouldn't stop you from adding back material if you think it's notable and important. My suggestion, if you want to add back material, though, is to do it in small pieces so each addition can be evaluated. Otherwise, as I said on the Kunis Talk page, it becomes that much harder to evaluate.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are all reasonable points you have made. If the other editor responds to my comments I will take it to more detail.  I understand that editors cannot be the police for all pages, but really that is my entire point.  It frustrates me when somebody visits a page for the first time in probably a year or more, and deems their views and their opinions of how to interpret the wiki guidelines as acceptable and the final word.  The reality is, after he came in and blew away a large chunk of my work with a vague reason and then after I made the revert and asked for a discussion about it he just ingored it and did it again was beyond frustrating.   When I know there are scores of actor pages with far more blatant and questionable edit choices I honestly find it unacceptable.  But as noted, I'm not going get dragged into this game of edit wars.  I will review some of the removed material, and I will still be active in looking for ways to improve the page.  I appreciate you taking the time to respond and discuss this and to be fair in your approach.Fsm83 (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My guess is NS will not comment further although he will probably watch the article now that he's taken an interest. I think you should stick with your plan, and you'll be fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for that prediction. Still, I think it's been a healthy debate, particularly for Wikipedia where debates can become quite contentious. Another suggestion for you. Please don't take it as a critcism. I think you should be more open to debate. What NS did was not particularly unusual in Wikipedia, and you can't get away with saying things like something is not worthy of debate ("it's not worth my time"). You can think it, but you shouldn't say it. Even your comment about "the minutiae of what is wiki acceptable" can be a problem. For better or for worse, just about everything on Wikipedia is "worthy" of debate, and some of it can be endless. Perhaps you've been spared that side of Wikipedia, but like most stuff here, it's got its pluses and minuses. Anyway, my suggestion, FWIW, in these kinds of issues is always be willing to debate. Just my two cents.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did laugh when I saw the response after you had written that. :) I may be a (newbie) as they like to say, but I hope I have shown that I am reasonable and just like having an opportunity to discuss things to clarify if nothing else.  I completely understand what you are saying and I will consider everything you have said here.  I will probably remain selective in what I choose to debate mainly for the fear of the endless possibilities.  But I do understand your point.  Thanks again.  As usual you have been very helpful. Fsm83 (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)