User talk:Hutch y2k

Ben Affleck
Yes, people put a huge amount of time into bringing an article up to good article status. That basically means that major style changes such as you made need to first be proposed on the article talk page, especially when the changes made do not adhere to the supported style formatting reccommended by the WikiProject that oversees that article. The sort of changes you arbitrarily made without consensus of the other article editors responsible for the GA puts it in jeopardy. Since you've made less than 50 edits to this encyclopedia sum total, and most of those are to the article of his wife, you can be considered a single purpose account and are subject to greater scrutiny than others. Don't jeopardize other's hard work to promote your own POV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't want to spend enormous amounts of time redoing what messes something up or reworking tables. While it is not a GA or a FA, the model on the article for Leonardo DiCaprio follows the standard use of tables for various roles, which are not of the merged format, but separate. I'm simply not going to address your personal comments, but remind you that they aren't acceptable fodder. I'd also remind you that any major changes or expansions to an article that is designated a good or featured article should be run by, not me first, but the sum total of editor who worked on the GA etc, first. You do that on the article talk page. The primary editor, I believe, on that article was ThinkBlue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hutch, don't listen to this. It is not true that you need to first verify that edits are okay before committing them, with Wildhartlivie or anyone else. In fact, the opposite is true. Your contributions are welcome, and don't let certain possessive editors scare you off.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  00:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Back off me and stop making harassing posts. Absolutely, anyone coming into a good or featured article and wanting to make major style and content changes that might effect that status should run it by the regular editors and propose major changes. Drop your bad faith accusations of ownership and butt out. If you have doubts about that, run it by an administrator. It is absolutely good editing etiquette to discuss major style changes with other editors, and any attempt to say otherwise is disingenuous. In fact, WP:OWN also says "This does not include egregious formatting errors". Changing to a non-standard table style format is such a formatting error. And note that I directed him to a main contributor of the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) This is not a harassing post. As you pointed out, Hutch is a relatively new editor, and he may think your attempts at bullying him are actually policy. He needs to know that they aren't. 2) My accusations of ownership are not "bad faith"; I really, sincerely believe you have WP:OWN issues. 3) Saying he needs to run his changes by ThinkBlue is just as untrue as saying he needs to run them by you. 4) Your other arguments have been addressed at Talk:Ben Affleck.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  01:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Get a grip, Chowbok. Suggesting that he discuss the article with the primary editor who took it through GA has nothing to do with ownership, it has everything to do with good etiquette when considering "greatly expanding" a good article. There's a hell of a huge difference between "running changes by someone" and discussing expansion or stylistic changes, which was what I was doing. I suspect that's a subtle difference you aren't familiar with, given your accusatory tactics and apparent lack of experience with the rigorous good and featured article process. I'm truly sorry you aren't aware of cooperative editing, maybe you can ask your new email buddy how to go about it. And you do have bad faith when it comes to your tactics with me. Attack and accuse, accuse and attack. Your whole approach is badly in need of an adjustment. Could I suggest a chiropractor? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Affleck

 * This is just a note to let you know you have reverted edits on Ben Affleck 3 times today. To do so again will put you in violation of the Three-revert rule and may lead to a block. Please discuss this on the talk page (click here to start a new thread). Thank you, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Another reply on my talk page. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Ben Affleck. 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. ''Sorry, wrong template '' Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Affleck
The reference is more properly positioned at the first mention of the name, which is where any new content should be sourced. I see no valid reason to move the citation further down to a later mention of the name. There is no specific guidelines that says the full birth name has to come second, in effect, when anyone drops part of their name, be it a hyphenated last name or a middle name, what they are known as professionally is a stage name, even if it is a shortened version of the birth name. "Ben" is short for "Benjamin", "Matt" is short for "Matthew". The point at the GAN was that the full name be given. There is no proscribed order. Given that it is intuitive that "Ben Affleck" is shorthand for "Benjamin Geza Affleck-Boldt" is a no-brainer leap of intuition. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then find a better wording than "known professionally as", although I don't quite know what it would be. Since it's a no-brainer lead from the full birth name to his SAG registered name, different descriptors can be used, but my preference is to lead with the given name, unless it's something obscure like Frances Gumm. Many cases use something like Matthew Paige "Matt" Damon and that's fine, but it's a logistic nightmare to do that to Affleck's name. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't being vicious, I noticed I had left the wrong template and corrected it from vandalism to 3RR. In all the other cases where my pop-up didn't click to the right section, I'd get racked for leaving the wrong template. So I fix and still get racked? Just trying to be accurate. That the name should be sourced at its first use is a given, why source something at the second or third use? That's not where a source should appear. And I see no reason why the names should be shifted when there is no guideline for whether a birth name, legal name or stage name should be listed first. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't respond because I was sick and actually didn't get on yesterday or the day before. I changed Casey's to match Ben's because Ben's actually does reference Casey's birth record and content on his mom. Trendy yuppies, you know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI re: Casey Affleck
Just to let you know, to request an assessment by a project, there are generally spots where assessments can be requested for that project. For the WP:ACTOR project, requests for reassessment can be submitted here and someone (probably me since I generally do them) will assess it. When you remove the previous assessment, it just throws the article out there into the great "unassessed unknown". Thought you'd like to know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I try to attend to the unassessed list every so often to keep the list beaten down. It's nice to know someone noticed. At one point, way back when, there were close to 1000 unassessed. That took excessive work, time and attention to beat it back down to manageable. Meanwhile, I keep the page I noted watchlisted so when someone requests an assessment, I generally go right to it and take care of it. Often times, Rossrs does some too. Assessments are a necessary evil here. Thought you'd like to know that there is a better way. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Film grosses
To be honest with you, I rarely if ever work on articles that use the film template, so I can't really tell you. My guess would be that for domestic films, the domestic box office would be used and the worldwide for films that have worldwide release, but I'm not sure. I would better direct you to go ask at WT:FILM for a definitive answer, or perhaps directly ask Erik. Sorry I can't tell you better. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The worldwide gross should only be added in the infobox. Other totals should be written under a Box office section within the article.  Mike   Allen  17:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem! You can always ask a film related question on the talk page of WP:FILM and actor related questions on WP:ACTOR.  Which article are you working on?   Reading the manual of style for film articles may be helpful if you haven't already read it. Happy edits! :-D  Mike   Allen  18:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Damon
Yeah, go for it. I actually was going to work on that, but I haven't gotten a chance to get to it. Remember, don't be bias in the article; don't praise him, cause you'll come off as adding your POV. There are a couple of movies that he received mixed reviews from, so. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, I was just saying, you know. You don't have to check in with me, I don't own the article. If you feel that this is need, which IMO does, it's fine. I don't think anyone is going to argue with you on that. If they do, I'll have your back on that. :) Yeah, I'll assume good faith with whatever you add. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  21:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)