User talk:George Serdechny/2010 Avatar debates

=Edit warring=

prehistory (events preceded this warning)
= Avatar (2009 film)= ...

Critical reception
...

Russian broadcast
After film was broadcasted in Russia, brothers Strugatsky' fans, noted that Avatar plot is almost completely copying Strugatsky 1960-70s Noon Universe. Only significant differences between them are: Main protagonist is russian (soviet), and indigenous Pandorians have dog-like muzzles, unlike Avatar's cat-faced characters. Huge bruhaha had been ensued by pro-communist press and web-media, that even russian civil rights activists, such as Valeria Novodvorskaya make a retaliatory turn, and released articles about "crazy commies". But when Boris Strugatsky heard these news, he refused to take any legal actions against Cameron. However, Cameron denies Avatar is a ripoff.

User talk:Flyer22 (Avatar (2009 film))
What rule forbid me to write it there? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not exactly about a rule forbidding you from putting that piece there; it is about WP:Consensus. The usual editors of that article are against it being put there, because not only is it taking up unnecessary space (we are trying to keep the size of this already huge article down/stable)...but it is WP:UNDUE the way you had it (meaning, for example, why should that paragraph be the one subsection there?). We created the Themes in Avatar article for a reason; consider putting it there. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All right. I just followed 3rd principle "You can edit this page right now" -- SerdechnyG (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You could always discuss this on the talk page, as was suggested to you by two editors (one being me). But the usual editors there will pretty much state the same thing, if they reply at all. Flyer22 (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, dear friend. It's just a few facts (sourced facts). You discuss them first, not me. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.  The left orium  14:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But they began it. Not me. So why I'm warned, and they are not? Please, stop this edit war, securing the article from further edits for a while. Let us discuss this information. I suggest only friendly intentions. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you began this by adding controversial information to the article without discussing it on the talk page first and and gaining consensus. You are more than welcome to open up a thread at Talk:Themes in Avatar.  The left orium  15:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It's all began from Avatar (2009 film) article. I added it there, in Critical reception. You can see it in article history. Users Flyer22 and DrNegative deleted it in the same way as Cinosaur and Betty Logan did, and then they redirected me on Themes in Avatar. Watch Avatar (2009 film)|this dialog. I ask You to figure out: "Who's right and who is wrong". And who's to blame. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not here to blame anyone. No one is right or wrong until consensus has been gained. Anyway, I can understand why you added the information to the Themes in Avatar article in the first place (because of Flyer22's comment), but you shouldn't have made those reverts. Next time take it to the talk page if someone reverts you.  The left orium  15:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But as I understand it - they were obliged to take it to the talk page first, if they wanted to delete it. It's the way how we make it in strict and severe Ru-wiki. So, when I wrote it in liberal English wikipedia, I expected huge debates, arguments, everything, but there were nothing of the sort - they just deleted it, deleted it, and deleted it again . Nobody even tried to discuss it. I understand their devotedness to Avatar, Cameron, etc. - but I'm not his devotee nor a spiteful critic, I never seen Avatar (and never will), and I never read Strugatsky novells. But I saw that media-histeria and decided to write about it. And I want everybody to know: I did not wrote controversial information, I wrote about controversy. Two big differences, isn't it? So, let's stay cool, remembering about neutrality and try once more, without "undo", "deletion" and warnings. Deal? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I response to allegations against me, I never said to put it in the "Themes" article. On my revert I cited that the entire statement that you wrote was not sourced. As a second note, I added to take it to the talk-page for WP:CONSENSUS to propose a large inclusion of this nature. When multiple editors challenge the notability and appropriateness of a revision, it is not kept within the "live" article until consensus favors it. It is kept out and discussed on the talk-page. That is how its always worked, otherwise cruft could float within the main articles for weeks before consensus removed them. Don't take it personally, just discuss it. State how you feel your revision adds anything to the current article in terms of notability (and in this case weight) in contrast to what is already mentioned. DrNegative (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So what? What does it change? You talking about consensus, but why You didn't even try to reach it? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "State how you feel your revision adds anything to the current article in terms of notability" - IT DOES. Otherwise, it wouldn't be deleted so quickly and quietly. This information stired up an outbreak even among wikipedians, so guess how it'll be recieved by fellow users who will read it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "You talking about consensus, but why You didn't even try to reach it?" -- says the user who started an edit-war. "IT DOES" -- Who says? You and you alone? I'm sorry I was unaware that this isn't Wikipedia, but this is SerdechnyG's Wikipedia. I'm sorry, I should have never brought that up. How should we change the commonly used pollicies now that you are in charge? /sarcasm off DrNegative (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. This fact is undisputed in russian wikipedia, even among the most devoted fans of Avatar. You can easily check it. So please add an extra few thousands in my favour. And DON'T try to turn the facts upside down. SerdechnyG (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So we are discussing facts now and not notability or weight? You find one statement that I stated which the information you added was a lie. When you revise the English Wikipedia, you get consensus on the English Wikipedia. We are not going to the Japanese, Korean, German, or Spanish Wikipedia to get consensus on their talk-pages for English Wikipedia articles, so what makes the Russian one so prominent? Is it bias? Take it to the respective talk-pages for you inclusions. This conversation is WP:DEADHORSE to me. DrNegative (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Identically. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides, I've just checked a German wiki, and guess what... -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if I would be able to read japanese and korean hieroglyphs... -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's sum up this discussion. The information, which I posted, was deleted immediately by Avatar devotees from both articles. No one tried to discuss it (except Betty Logan, after this warring ended). This information is a metter-of-fact for some other wikies and for Web-media, but it was a real revelation for DrNegative and some other users. But did they privatized these articles, or what? It's not their property. Let's think objectively and impartially: What obstacle prevents us from posting this information there? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, for the record as seen from my sole revert here, the entire paragraph you included was unsourced and I noted as such. The only "revelation" I had was how an editor like yourself thought they could include an entire un-sourced paragraph into this article and get away with it. DrNegative (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You forgot to add this words into Your statement: "But You put sources there immediately in few minutes after I reverted Your edit". And please note that I did not "get away with it", and even more - I stayed, and I have no intends to get away from there. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides, all points, on which You based Your previous responds, turned out to be nothing more than just a no t h i n g. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (<-)WP:PROVEIT - The burden of proof lies with the editor who includes the info, not me (Go read it, I am not making this up). I doesn't matter when you eventually added a version with references 5 minutes or 5 weeks afterward. If you actually read the policies of Wikipedia you would know that and wouldn't argue it. As for my previous points, I still believe your entire paragraph as a whole violates WP:UNDUE, with the shorter version of it placed in by Ssilvers being more encyclopedic without violating undue weight. You can push out your wikilinks to basic English definitions all you want if it helps you make your point, but then I would also suggest that the Russian Wikipedia article (and several others) you are citing as grounds for your inclusion be revised, since you are so fascinated with it. It looks horrible in comparison to the quality of this one as a whole. Did it ever occur to you why this article is GA status and soon to be a featured article? Perhaps that is because editors here like myself keep editors like you from throwing un-sourced material into the article? Here is a wikilink and another one for you to ponder over since you seem to like them so much. Happy edit-warring and farewell. DrNegative (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Too much text. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And with that post, you appear to have conceded any intent to discuss the situation constructively. Therefore any additional action on your part will be seen and treated as edit warring. Have a good day. Trusilver  00:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As well as yours. Bye. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts on the issue at Talk:Themes_in_Avatar. Betty Logan (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)