User talk:MisterShiney/Archive May - June 2013

Edit warring discussion
I have started a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring about the WP:3RR violations we've had to deal with at Ian Fleming‎. It's at if you want to comment there. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate source?
Hi, could you clarify where there are acceptable sources here, a section of promotional and non-notable information? Thank you, 99.136.252.252 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not promotional. It legitimately describes her later career. -- MisterShiney    ✉    22:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Couldn't disagree more--it's unencyclopedic, and relies upon her personal website as its only source. I've started a discussion at the article talk page, and will probably take it to the BLP noticeboard, since I think it's fairly blatant. Feel free to comment there. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Your recent editing history at Carolyn Moos shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually. That doesnt count. I have not violated the 3RR. It is VERY bad faith to revert content that is currently under discussion until a consensus has been met. Restoring content that is currently under dispute is not  in violation of 3RR as when the contet is in dispute, STATUSQUO reigns. I would also ask that you Don't Template Regulars. I, and others respond much better to a friendly message than a threatening template. --  MisterShiney    ✉    11:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're lucky I've already taken a position on the article and therefore cannot act on the 3RR report. Your statement above about 3RR is grossly incorrect.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Pray tell how? -- MisterShiney    ✉    14:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OH COME ON! SERIOUSLY?? -- MisterShiney    ✉    14:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek Into Darkness
Its ok, MisterShiney, it happened to me, too. Plea$ant 1623  ✉  13:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was totally dickish! Will teach me for editing on my phone in the morning. Really don't understand why it was doing that though. Any ideas? -- MisterShiney    ✉    16:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Anon edits
Hi MisterShiney, I'm not trying to avoid WP:3RR with those. I just sometimes forget I'm not logged in. I'll try to stop rushing. Thank you though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's alright. Thank you for taking it the right way and how it was intended. Too many experienced editors are being pushed out because of false accusations and what not. Hate seeing it. MisterShiney    ✉    16:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Your revert of my edits to Prometheus (film)
Hello MisterShiney. I had decided to undo user:Darkwarriorblake's reversal which I consider was rude & unjustified. Now you again reverted my changes, stating:
 * "Reverted 1 edit by AVM: Please see MOS Film, in particular the bit about the plot. Say's we shouldnt go into precise details. At the end of the day, it isnt needed. (TW)"

So, do you prefer that the PLOT section in this article be left with errors, mistakes, and lies? There are a lot of details there already, and some are very wrong. For example, where the heck did some editor get the notion that Shaw was sterile??? Now that's original research, albeit false!

So, corrections from a man of science must be tossed right away?

Son, I've been reading and watching science fiction films a good 25 years before you were born. I'm a huge fan of Ridley Scott and of all the Alien & Predator franchises, to say the least, and also, I've watched this film Prometheus thoroughly. I assure you, the PLOT section has several flaws which I attempted to correct. Also I added important detail to a scene which previous editors seem to have completely missed, related to how Dr. Holloway got infected, who in turn got Dr, Shaw pregnant with an alien, which in turn killed the last Engineer, etc. But you say that "isnt needed"!

The current WRONG plot section has 709 words, and after my edit it had 800. Too much perhaps, but accurate, no matter what the MOS:film policy says.

I propose to correct the article and try to simplify it at the same time. It bothers me to leave it defective as it is now. What do you propose?

Regards, --AVM (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You added a theory because you are assuming that the worm in Holloway's eye was some dormant creature in the fluid that kept growing as it infected each person. It's a theory, an invention of your own, so please stop saying you are correcting the plot or that the current plot is wrong because it's tedious for editors who have been through it a thousand times before with people who claim they are correcting inaccuracies unaware of their own lack of knowledge. Your degree in Ridleology by the way does not give you an authority on the film. You might notice you are the only editor, in the articles entire history, to think that the liquid is a pupa dormant thing. Maybe everyone else ISN'T getting it wrong. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I was talking to User:MisterShiney, not to you. But I'll say that I'm amazed at the sharp contrast among what the first paragraph of your User Page says (which I fully agree with), and your actual behavior (which I don't -- I've seen your entries in the film's Talk Page). Instead of reviewing the film to ascertain whether I'm right or wrong, you flatly (and petulantly) accuse me of inventing scenes that just happen to be there in the film to see, that is, if you pay enough attention. I never wrote "the liquid is a pupa dormant thing" nor any stupid phrase like that; you are very confused there. Please, act civilized: take another look at the film and see for yourself. --AVM (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes well Wikipedia alerts you now when people are talking about you. You didn't say anything about a pupa, except when you said " removing one of several transparent pods full of a clear liquid, pries it open, and finds a very small pupa-like dormant organism. He then goes to the recreation room where Holloway distracts himself. David carries the organism in the tip of his finger". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * AVM, First off, if you wish to discuss one of my changes then you should maintain Civility and then I would see you as mature and would then develop respect for you. In my time here I have conversed with many different editors, and when they maintain civility, it shows their maturity and they get my respect. Which is basically what says on the banner at the top of this page. You want respect as an editor, you earn it. Your excessive use of Boldness is nothing short of an attempt to bully me into your way of thinking, just because I disagree with you.
 * Secondly, I for one don't care how much experience you have in SciFi or how much of a fanboy you are. Policy is there for a reason. The policy in this case is quite clear. WP:FILMPLOT Is quite clear on the subject: "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range." It then goes on to say that you should "Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range (which you have not yet done) and that Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section. (Which you have not done) and that If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary". Which is how the plot currently stands. Oh and for good measure it is quite clear in pointing out that "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail."
 * Thirdly, anyone, especially Darkwarriorblake, is welcome to discuss things on my talk page. I welcome their input and it is needed. Especially when I myself am unsure of something.
 * Lastly, if your bold changes get reverted then per WP:BRD the next stage is for you to DISCUSS on the article talk page. -- MisterShiney    ✉    23:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No thanks! Not interested, it's not worth it. For all I care, both of you can keep your defective article forever (as you obviously believe it belongs to you). Good riddance! --AVM (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

STID revert.
You know better than most the value of using the talk page to sort out differences. Your revert didn't help matters. You need to work harder at working with your fellow editors who disagree with you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * SorryJack, but it should have go e to talk way before Me S reverted - and way before you warred to the brink of 3RR. Everything you've said above to Mr S should be directly straight back to you too. I've left my thoughts on the talk page for discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes I do. The consensus that you refer to is outdated and it was made on the understanding that as soon as the film became released generally after the Australia Premiere, the plot section would be updated. Which has happened. As other editors have pointed out, the film has been released widely across the English speaking world, with the US being the only English speaking country (As far as I am aware) that hasnt had it open yet. There is no justified reason for it not to have a plot section. -- MisterShiney    ✉    20:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page
Let's use more tact on talk pages. People will get upset about this for recent films. All we can do is point to WP:SPOILER and explain how it is the only sensible approach this encyclopedia can take. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Erik. Sorry Erik. -Hangs head in shame- -- MisterShiney    ✉    19:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries! :) We are just used to this setup in our roles as editors. It's easy to forget that many are just readers with different levels of expectations. Hence why talk pages are usually full of reiterations of our policies and guidelines... it's an eternal teaching process. I added a notice at the top of the film article's talk page. I don't know if it will help matters, but that and the existing thread should be explanatory enough for future visitors who may want to complain. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

NCIS
Since when did it become standard to create an entire section just to link a page that's already present in the infobox? I've only seen this on the NCIS season articles. Davejohnsan (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah my bad. Looked at a couple of my favourite series and you were right. Apologies for any inconvenience. -- MisterShiney    ✉    21:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. I appreciate the swift response. Davejohnsan (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it used to be standard when Infobox television season didn't include a link to the main episode list. That link was only added in December 2010, which is why the links are still present in so many articles. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks AL. It can be difficult sometimes to keep up with policies, guidelines and MOS as they always seem to be changing. -- MisterShiney    ✉    16:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me
Can you tell me why you keep putting the disagreeing comment back onto the talk page?MandarinVengeance (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it is against Talk page guidelines to remove other editors comments just because they disagree with you. And I didnt "keep" doing anything. I believe you are referring to User:Sjones23 and User:Fandraltastic who also reverted your removal. --  MisterShiney    ✉    21:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well you should let people keep doubting your expectations! Those other users as much as you are irritating me and I won't let you or any other heartless user ruin everything with their spam types! I wont be going on that page no more since those idiot users don't seem to listen on stoping!MandarinVengeance (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello MandarinVengence, I thought I'd chip in here. Do you realise that what you were doing on the Iron Man 3 page was wrong? If not, I'd suggest you revisit the guidelines as linked above before contributing to more discussions. No single user has the right to remove edits from a talk page, nor close a discussion, because they disagree with the sentiment contained within. drewmunn talk 06:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Please make yourself familiar with Policies and guidelines if you wish to continue to edit. -- MisterShiney    ✉    16:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

John Clark
You have been told to stay away from his talk page. Let it go. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but as a blocked editor I do not recognise his priviage to remove comments from his talk page. Especially when he has asked me to reply, if he requests replies he shouldn't be deleting them. Portrays other editors in a bad light and makes it look like they are acting in bad faith. MisterShiney    ✉    10:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're wrong there. A person may delete comments from their talk page, blocked or otherwise. You can take it that he has read your comment. And when someone asks you to stay away from their talk page, do so. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you point to the policy that insists upon that please? I find it highly questionable, especially as Clark asked a direct answer. As far as I am aware, all editors are allowed to edit all pages responsibly, except under certain circumstances. - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah you may delete them, if they are personal attacks. But when they are justified replies that are not vandalism or personal attacks etc then there is no justification for their removal - unless section blanking - by the owner of a talk page, least alone a 3rd party editor. -- MisterShiney    ✉    10:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it. Continuing to post on a person's talk page when they've told you not to is generally considered bad form here. Not sure if that's written down anywhere, but no one will respect you for it if you do. I'm just telling you what happens here. You can argue whether it's right or wrong (but not with me) but what I've told you is how things work here presently. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, well if we are going on that policy, he doesn't have my permission to remove my comments (and nor do you), he isn't "cleaning up his talk page" otherwise he would of blanked the section, he isn't removing a harmful post, it isn't prohibited material, ergo, he has no reason to remove the comments. Sorry if this is coming across as dickish, but it's the principle. -- MisterShiney    ✉    10:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat that Clark asked a direct question. Mr Smiley answered it and the reply was met with an unfounded and uncivil accusation of vandalism. I'm not sure why Mr S is getting your disapprobation, when it is Clark that needs the lesson in basic manners. If there is no policy then Me S is free to edit whichever page he wishes. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You have only got to look at John Clark's recent message Anthony. Opening with insults "You are lazy and I am exhausted." "reduced to an event in which I was insulted and demeaned because of a system which currently does not allow, because of assumed vanity, persons deemed to be living notables to defend themselves." If you look back at the conversations you will see he was the one doing the insulting and there was an incredible amount of accusations flying from him to anyone who didn't agree with his views. "I used humor (humour) to no effect." The effect was to insult other editors using condescending tones and language. "my website, which you will have noticed specializes in legal and consumer matters in the showbiz arena" What he means by "matters" is rants. Because that is all it as. A bunch of rants from an old geezer who thinks the whole world is against him. "take a totally NPOV when reading it and commenting. If you cannot take the time, respectfully, better you don't offer an opinion." Be careful now, because if you offer an opinion, you won't have read it properly. "But take special notice that the perpetrators, cowards that they are, have morphed their initial position into a safe one, denied to me, of "... according to the author (of the source book)" thinking that will cause me to back off." Oh look another personal attack against editors and on top of that, a complete disdain for the process in building a consensus for changes when that is standard practice on all articles. "But the damage was done" - Namely his ego. "The authority I cited (the Just William Society) also has to show it has integrity." Bearing in mind that it is a glorified fanclub. "I will soon know whether the biographer inspected the BBC records as he claims, or didn't." Yet another example of not assuming good faith. So from that message alone can you see how he insults other editors and the guy plain doesn't care anything about the project just getting his own way. -- MisterShiney    ✉    17:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How about this MisterShiney, if you post on JohnClarknew's page again, I will block you. I appreciate that you haven't posted there in 12 hours, but I hope this makes things clear. Go and do something else, you clearly have no patience for this person any more and so are unable to assume good faith. I'll admit I've been fairly distracted with other things and should have stepped in sooner, but that's the way of things. I'll post a message to the page to tell the gentlemen to stop mentioning you, so you won't have anything to comment on there. Simply put, drop it and walk away. Worm TT( talk ) 09:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a bit harsh, and one could argue that is an abuse of your admin privileges. Especially when all I am doing is responding to his open comments and open invitations on commenting on the issues he has raised, which to my knowledge there is no policy against that. I have not been uncivil towards him, I have not vandalised his page, despite his insistence that I have and I have not attacked him personally. I have just provided answers, as best I am able, to his questions.
 * Oh contraire, I would say that I have a large amount of patience for him. I am more than happy to assume good faith with this editor, providing he does the same and shows a willingness to collaborate with other editors - part of which includes not reverting/removing comments when they are in fact not in breach of any policy, especially when they are replies to questions he has asked and posted in a public place. He has thrown around accusations across multiple pages to multiple editors all because he has a bee in his bonnet about being a "notable person" and not being allowed to edit any page he could be associated with and not have a neutral point of view (A core principle of Wikipedia). I, and others, have tried to help him to understand policies and guidelines, but he is just plain rude and doesn't want to know. You have only just got to look at some of his comments. He has no interest in listening to people who don't adhere to his point of view. I find it highly amusing how he goes from saying that people with "pseudonyms" are not allowed to contact him - being uncivil in removing their comments, to leaving your comment in place when you yourself use an alias because he has a chance that you might come on his side. But even then that comment is a borderline slap in the face. My comments towards him have been nothing but an attempt to smooth things over, get to know him a bit and discuss with him what has been going on, in an attempt to show he can be civil and as such perhaps get him unblocked. But because I, and others, came down on the side of policies and guidelines - against his view point, which was in breach of said guidelines, he has no interest in listening. I was attempting to provide him with an opportunity to show he can discuss things in a civil way with other editors, as I am sure we have all done on several occasions. I do hope a serious discussion takes place in an open forum as to whether he gets unblocked or not, because as yet, I for one feel that he has yet to show the community that he has learnt something from the block and that he can act in a civil way towards other editors regardless of their views and opinions are. -- MisterShiney    ✉    18:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you believe I am abusing my admin priviledges, please feel free to discuss the matter with another admin of your choice, or take it to one of the administrator noticeboards. I always welcome review of my actions. However, I'm afraid that your objectivity has been lost - you talk about civility, yet refuse to leave a person alone when they ask. You call him rude, but refer to him as "an old geezer who thinks the whole world is against him". It's clear to me that you need to walk away from this subject, and I mean properly walk away. Finally, this is policy compliant - Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. Worm TT( talk ) 08:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd just point out that, despite being policy compliant, JCN has previously listed his reasons for removing comments made by editors who disagree with him, and they weren't particularly civil. He's not a user to be reasoned with by anyone, nor one who would benefit from attempts to reach compromise in such situations, so I'd suggest you step back as well Shiney. The actions he take contradict his own requests, and he lack of openness to anything anybody says to either point this out or oppose him means that all that will happen is you'll sully your name. Stand back, WP:DISENGAGE, and have a glass of wine. Or maybe another, stronger, alcoholic beverage. I fear that he is too busy asserting authority and throwing threats to realise that his own arguments against such strict guidelines are fighting the other side of the battle against him. There's no point in damaging your own name trying to reason or oppose his actions when he's ultimately self destructive anyway. drewmunn talk  09:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have issued an apology here and taken my share of the blame because I have since realised that my behaviour, although intentionally good, was in some way flawed and was taken the wrong way which may have further antagonised the situation. Anyway, thanks guys for making me see sense. -- MisterShiney    ✉    19:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal at TAFI talk
A discussion that may interest you is occurring at Wikiproject TAFI's talk page at: Proposal: use Theo's Little Bot to automate the schedule and queue. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC) ✅

List of Terra Nova episodes
I'm not editing List of Terra Nova episodes while the edits are being discussed (unlike the others I respect the BRD process) but at least part of this edit is very wrong. " - Aired as a double bill with episode x." is not part of the episode title so shouldn't be in the Title field. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I didnt actually see the whole conversation, or the edit history. I came back, saw that the episode list still handn't been changed, and as such it needed doing as it would of appeared, at the time I last looked, editors were (and still are) calling out for it to be reflected in the way that new sources are saying it is. As I said, that just because it aired as a double bill, as is regularly common with TV series, doesnt mean that they are counted as the same episode. Especially, when they have different titles and production codes. Sorry buddy, consensus has changed. Even though I disagree with you, I shall though, revert it back to the status quo, because you are right, that needs to be finished first. -- MisterShiney    ✉    17:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My point, which the others ignored, is that MOS:TV says that articles have to reflect the entire history of a series. The episodes weren't just aired "back-to-back", they were aired as a single episode, with one set of credits. The first episode was "Genesis" and you can't tell where part 1 ended and part 2 started. It was effectively a single episode that was broken into 2 after the series finished. We even discussed this at the original discussion, when I was accused of inconsistency because the final "episode", called "Occupation/Resistance" was listed as episodes 11 & 12 and I hadn't changed it to 11a and 11b. The difference with that episode was that it was clear that these were two episodes that had been cobbled together to make one, while Genesis was one episode, made in two parts. All I've suggested is that we comply with the MOS. We can certainly list 13 episodes, but we need to ensure that the reader is aware of how they originally aired. Unfortunately, the others seem to be denying this ever happened by their actions. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Apology
I apologize if I seem abrupt with you regarding the Terra Nova edits. I'm just tired of the WP:IDHT from AussieLegend. Invoking BRD after reverting 3 different editors in the past 2 days on each article just doesn't wash with me, especially in light of WP:BRD-NOT "BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas". Anyway, didn't want to appear unreasonably rude with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @MisterShiney, I don't want to drag this over to your page so I've responded to these comments at Niteshift36's talk page. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually AL, keep them on here. Maybe I can do some sort of mediation between you two, as I am more than happy to intercede. I am going out for a bit, but will take a look tonight when I get in. -- MisterShiney    ✉    18:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's gone from my page. It didn't belong on my page. I'm not here to debate the same thing in a second location. I came here apologize if I seemed abrupt. I've done that. I'm finished here. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the reason that you're going out, you're definitely excused (believe it or not, I only watched the last movie for the first time last night). Although he doesn't seem to want to talk, here is what I posted on Niteshift36's talk page:


 * "Please stop misrepresenting the actions of other editors. Claiming "he has reverted 3 editors, 4 times in the last 2 days. BRD is long past" is bordering on a personal attack. At List of Terra Nova episodes on 21 May I reverted Frogkermit because he edited against a long standing consensus. Two days later I reverted him because there was an active discussion underway and his edit disrespected WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, which are widely considered to be guidelines that we should follow. The same happened at Terra Nova (TV series) for the same reasons. On 21 May an IP made an edit to make the article the same as the episode list. However his edit was based on somebody changing the episode list against the standing consensus. This was before we even started discussing the matter. Since the discussion started, the only reversions I have made have been to Frogkermit for the reasons explained. This was not meant as a reversion. It was substitution of one template for a more appropriate one, with a date addition. By rights, Jojhutton should not even have edited the article, as that was part of the disputed section. If you want to point fingers, point fingers at him. And, just because you think a discussion has ended doesn't mean that it actually has. Discussion is still underway on the talk page and I've opened a DRN discussion, so the matter is clearly not finalised. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)"
 * That's it, for whatever good it will do. he won't even acknowledge the DRN, believing he's not allowed to make opening comments until it has been accepted. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Just letting you know that there has been no further interaction with Nighshift36 for days. He wouldn't even comment at the DRN discussion so it seems he's not interested in justifying his position. I've now opened an RfC at Talk:Terra Nova (TV series) so I'll see if he's willing to comment there. Anyway, thanks for your offer to mediate, but you can scatch this one off your list. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. No problem. Sorry, I didn't really get around to this. This weekend was Bank Holiday and I was pretty busy. My bad. -- MisterShiney    ✉    20:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edits on Doctor Who (film)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Rankersbo (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? But ONE revert is NOT edit warring. Yes the info box was reverted, so I removed the repeated content as a compromise. Three Editors is not necessarily a consensus and what is "normal" is most certainly not policy. Simply put, if it is a film, a film info box is used. Regardless of the medium is is released or if it is a spin off or not. That is MOS:FILM. Oh and dont template the regulars. Because all that does is come across as being patronising and uncivil. -- MisterShiney    ✉    16:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You removed the infobox twice and (re)moved the cast from the infobox also twice. Each time you were reverted by a different editor. WikiProject Doctor Who uses their own infobox for all episodes, including TV movies. That is not against any policy and reflects consensus amongst all regular DW editors. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 20:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about the template warning, I was unaware of the policy you pointed me to. I actually counted 3 reversions, two undos and a manual, but may be mistaken. I don't actually care about which template the infobox uses providing the article has one. But there was a lot of back and forth on that issue and where it's one against several it's easier to warn the one than the several. Rankersbo (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: Doctor Who film
Hey, thanks for your message! Yes, i was going to go ahead with it, but thought some users would disagree and dispute whether it was a film or not! :) User:Emeremma, User talk:Emeremma 20:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I for one am for maintaining it as a TV episode until more information is released. Fair enough reasons though :) -- MisterShiney    ✉    15:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Stretford Children's Theatre
Hi MisterShiney--apparently this is my day for this--what possible rationale is there for including a long and unsourced list of productions of questionable note? Thanks, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I will admit, all I saw was an IP blanking a section when I saw, what appeared to be a source in the title. I have self reverted because I can see you are correct. If you are getting this regulalry then you may want to consider getting an account. Thank you for discussing. -- MisterShiney    ✉    20:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World War Z (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Action (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek Into Darkness
There is no "consensus" other than the one you have invented. Since you do not have a reliable source either, perhaps the information should simply be removed until it can be verified one way or the other. Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * PS, They would have a memorial for the events of the previous film (specifically the attack by Nero), because the previous film took place ONE YEAR BEFORE the events of Star Trek Into Darkness. That's what "one year ago" refers to. Try paying attention. It's really not that complicated Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your comments would be better placed on the article's talk page, rather than the talk page of an individual editor; it would allow a wider input from the community. I'd also like to bring your attention to WP:BRD. You made a Bold edit which MisterShiney Reverted: at that stage you need to Discuss, not revert again to your own personal interpretation and continue to edit war regardless. I suggest you do not continue to revert if the text is changed again, and I would also advise you open this thread again on the article page. - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The consensus is automatic because the film has been out for nearly a month, the plot has been edited numerous times by other editors and no other editor has raised the issue that for some reason that only you seem to see, the film is showing a memorial service for the events of the first film. Being the only one who wants to make the change, you need to discuss this (per WP:BRD) on the the talk page and provide a reliable source that says that this is indeed the case. Till then, as an IP has said (and accepted by another editor with reviewer privileges), The Status Quo reigns as that is the current agreed consensus. On a different note, I would also ask that you watch your tone. Especially that early in the morning as it is borderline Uncivil. --  MisterShiney    ✉    16:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Illusive Man
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Illusive Man. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Farm-Fresh eye.png You have a reply at this RfC. There may have been a misunderstanding—it's only about capitalizing the first letter versus not capitalizing the first letter. czar   &middot;   &middot;  22:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that
Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

White Queen
I think you confused 86.139.158.172  with 188.221.225.224. Check the difference between mine and the one I undid. It was all copy/paste summaries Ryan8374 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I do apologise. Thanks for picking up on it. MisterShiney    ✉    22:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice
As an editor with an interest in New York City articles, you are invited to participate in an RfC at The Dakota. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)