User talk:MisterShiney/Archive September - October 2012

September 2012
Your recent editing history at Revolution (TV series) 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, Thanks for the warning, in fact as soon as I was aware something like that was going down, I did start a thread on the page's talk page so as to try and come to a resolution. Can I ask if the other person has also been issued with a warning?  MisterShiney  ( Come say hi ) 21:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting a discussion is the correct course of action. Continuing to revert is not.  No, I did not warn the other individual.  Although, they had two reverts in 24 hours, that 24 time period passed by the time I came across the edit war.  You had two reverts within 15 minutes of each other.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I realise that. That wasn't intentional, it was just I was online at the time lol, there would of been more of a delay had I not been online. I didn't just put her at the top either, I jigged it all about, grouping the family together because it is essentially about them. I am probably more defensive of the article because it is the first time that I have been involved in editing a wiki article. I am of course aware that it is a coalition of people writing and I don't own the rights to the stuff written, but doesn't stop the warm fuzzy feeling of seeing something you wrote online. MisterShiney  ( Come say hi ) 23:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh and that doesn't mean I am going to continue reverting on this post. I don't intentionally do that. MisterShiney  ( Come say hi ) 23:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying that, I am aware that I did revert back to the same edit again, after checking the NBC Website and seeing on there that the show is in fact from her viewpoint.
 * That very well may lead to you getting blocked now. I've requested page protection until this stupid edit war is over.  Since I'm involved, I can't do anything myself.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WTF? You asked me to find a "reliable source" to back up my claim and I did..! Made the relevant changes, then without even acknowledging my new reliable source the other guy reverts it back. The other guy even reverted it back after another 3rd person made the changes! And he hasn't even been warned! I'm a big fan of people changing, but he has a history of edit warring! And no one has yet to provide me with the wiki policy that says that Characters are listed in order of their production credits!
 * It should be noted that after it was originally changed back, it hasn't been edited by myself since, in fear of being blocked. MisterShiney  ( Come say hi ) 09:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What parts of WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR are you not understanding? Those policies trump who's right and who's wrong with few exceptions. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I understand them. I was just refering to my lack of understanding as to where it was referred to that cast had to be listed in order of where they appear in the credits, rather than their importance in the storyline. But lets just forget about it. Thank you for all your help in trying to sort it out. [[User:MisterShiney| MisterShiney  ( Come say hi )

Hello!
Hello, I saw that you signed up for WikiProject Film. I just wanted to welcome you on board and hope you will stick around. Check out our main forum to see ongoing discussions. Let me know if you have any questions! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks buddy. Good to get involved with some stuff. Will check it out later. See you around MisterShiney  ( Come say hi ) 15:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

General Notes
I noticed a few recent edits of yours and wanted to share some cautions. As I said before, please be careful about changing or challenging the work of other editors, especially since you seem to be new to editing and aren't familiar with policies and guidelines.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First, the warning on "blanking" does not apply when only a line is removed, as was done on Cassi Thomson. Blanking applies to removing a significant portion or the page itself, and the warning is only used if there is no good reason for the removal.  See WP:VANDTYPES.  The person who removed a redundant line on Cassi Thomson did the right thing.  Please be more careful about warnings.
 * Second, the term "is" should be used for film, TV, and other works even if they no longer air because the work still exists. "Was" is only for something that has been destroyed or a person that's died.  A series may be shown in syndication or movie replayed on TV, so "is" would be correct.
 * Third, it's not Wiki policy to always require a reference for a change, as you said with the IP user that changed the Marko character on Taken 2. That user explained their change, and films and TV especially do not always have references - if that was their name or that's what happened in the plot, that's what happened.  If you have problems with changes, the procedure is to open a subject on the Talk page so editors can come to a concensus, not to demand another editor provide references for their work.
 * Also, when you state that something is according to Wiki policy, you should provide a link to that policy to ensure your statement is accurate.
 * Thanks for the heads up and advice. Oh and I haven't reverted it, because it is nit picking and really don't want to get caught up in an Edit War. But you do put a capital letter in titles, regardless of if they are put before or after a name. I am an English Teacher. MisterShiney  ( Come say hi ) 21:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a writer. If it comes after the name and "the" precedes the title, no capitalization:
 * http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/capitalization/capitalization-of-job-titles.html
 * http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/capitalization/capitalization-with-job-titles/
 * http://www.a-language-guide.com/Articles/Content/Rules_for_Capitalizing_Job_Titles_in_English-190.html
 * If it were "Jackson Teller, Vice President," yes, but it was "Jackson Teller, the then-vice president..." so no capitalization.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected...did I mention I was a new teacher? lol. MisterShiney  ( Come say hi ) 21:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Taken 2. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia Manual of Style for films, mainly, "Lead Section." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Reception "Ideally, the nationality of the film should be identified in the opening sentence." Nationality, not language spoken. Adhering to Wiki Manual of Style is not "nitpicking."'' Bobbyandbeans (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ruby Sparks
The aim of all articles it to get them to the highest standards. The highest recognised standard on WP is being classed as a Featured Article. The following film articles are of Featured standard; But I'm a Cheerleader, Fight Club, The Simpsons Movie and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The list is longer but these four show that if all character names are linked in a concise plot then a list is not needed, and that discussion of casting (Dano and Kazan are currently dating, stuff like that) is to be about how they became involved in the film. I have removed the list again because though the plot is a little bloated at the moment it actually links more actors than the cast list did. Feel free to find sources to do with the process of casting because that would add value to the article and improve it but refrain from a lazy revert edit, because a simple list (while in the WP:Film style guide) does not help the article towards being an FA. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A talk section has been set up on the Article talk page feel free to come and discuss. In the meantime, I put the class list back in with some character details as per your recommendation in your previous summary of the article. MisterShiney (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is fine except it is incomplete, as it does not list Alia Shawkat or Deborah Ann Woll. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets add it then. :) MisterShiney  ( Come say hi ) 20:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. :) MisterShiney  ( Come say hi ) 21:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Film editors hypocrisy proven yet again
I don't have time for games but this from the Shawshank log:


 * 00:12, 14 July 2012‎ TheOldJacobite (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,324 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 502108594 by Darkwarriorblake: Last good version; JTBX, do not accuse other editors of vandalism. (TW)) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 23:05, 13 July 2012‎ JTBX (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,310 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Plot) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 23:04, 13 July 2012‎ JTBX (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,308 bytes) (-16)‎ . . (→‎Plot) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 23:04, 13 July 2012‎ JTBX (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,324 bytes) (-7)‎ . . (→‎Plot) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 21:19, 13 July 2012‎ JTBX (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,331 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (→‎Plot: per talkpage and other rephrase) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 21:13, 13 July 2012‎ JTBX (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,340 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Plot: moving this, out of place) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 19:37, 13 July 2012‎ Alangar Manickam (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (25,340 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 18:57, 13 July 2012‎ JTBX (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (25,336 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (→‎Plot) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 18:53, 13 July 2012‎ JTBX (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,344 bytes) (+20)‎ . . (stop removing film, details, edging on vandalism) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 18:46, 13 July 2012‎ Darkwarriorblake (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (25,324 bytes) (-58)‎ . . (→‎Plot) (undo)

So we are on the same page? Do you realise that my edits were mostly to point out the hypocrisy of the users who were reverting me for adding in important details eg sexual assault, but reverting me when I take away extra details. Infact when I took away so much as per the talk page everyone keeps saying, it still reads fine. But as you mentioned, and as I called out 3 months earlier, it is borderline vandalism to radically revise a plot and remove details. --JTBX (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I really do not I am afraid. I see you making 7 similar edits in the space of a few hours and this is from several months ago. Nothing will have changed consensus wise in the space of a few months. MisterShiney  ( Come say hi ) 13:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

JTBX's post at Editor assistance
You might want to have a look at this. I am not telling you whether or how you should respond, but I do think you should be aware of his one-sided version of events. Cheers! --- The Old Jacobite The '45  16:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok WIll do. MisterShiney  ( Come say hi ) 17:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wake up
and a month ago, from an admins page who tried to include similar changes. Its not about dropping things and letting them ago, that is simply another way of saying don't grow a spine and stand up to these people who are violating policies and owning articles. I don't even know what to do anymore, what a mess this encyclopedia has become. --JTBX (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Road
Please add more of what you think should be done so we can work something out, thanks. Alternatively, watch the film (I know you hate it), and tell me what you think of the plot, if you have time.--JTBX (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Passenger 57
Hi,

I note that you have made an amendment to the article Passenger 57 which removed an image I had re-added to that article.

I note that the reasons given for your amendment were firstly, that images are not needed in the plot sections of film articles and secondly, that there may be copyright issues associated with the use of the image.

I note that you requested that if I disagreed with your analysis that I should discuss this with you.

I can advise that although I understand your reasons for amending the article, I am of the opinion that the amendment was not necessary.

Although images are not required for all plot sections of film articles on Wikipedia there is no rule forbidding their use. With regards to the copyright issues, these are dealt with on the page of the image itself. I have thoroughly read Wikipedia's policies on the use of images and understand when copyright infringements arise. I am satisfied that there is no copyright infringement with regards to the use of the image in the Passenger 57 article.

I have therefore amended the article to re-introduce the image (before I get an orphaned file message).

If you wish to discuss this with me further, please feel free to do so.

Regards --Gingerdave (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2012 (GMT)