User talk:Moovi/Archive 1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * Welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!  The Old Jacobite The '45  01:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. ⁓ Hello  71  02:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Fugitive (1993 film) 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. Jim1138 (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

3RR
Is a "bright line". It does not matter if you are right. Do it and you will be blocked. Jim1138 (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of right or wrong. Will he be blocked for edit warring too? He's entitled to delete properly sourced information for no plausible reason, other than to say I didn't include an edit summary with my single edit? Moovi (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. All editors are expected to work together, not to edit war. How about discussing this with TheOldJacobite on talk:The Fugitive (1993 film)? Start a discussion on the Fugitive talk page and let him know on his talk page: user talk:TheOldJacobite? It would be beneficial for all. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Fugitive (1993 film). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 06:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring after several clear warnings, as you did at The Fugitive (1993 film). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. M ASEM (t) 06:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that while you did engage at the talk page after several warnings, proceeding to then continue editing to your preferred version the reason for the block. When the block is complete, you should address all the concerns in a message at the article's talk page and wait for consensus before attempting to make the edits. --M ASEM  (t) 06:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Further, you are not "entitled" to make contributions. When multiple editors are disagreeing with your edits and urging you to discuss the matter at the talk page, you need to stop editing the article and focus on discussing the situation at the talk page. Once consensus emerges on how to change the article, you'll find other editors willing to help—as happened with another editor, who put portions of your sweeping changes into the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you C.Fred for your input. I welcome your opinion, and I'm interested in engaging this dialogue with you or other editors. I'm in complete agreement with everything you said, and I'm ready to comply. I would however note that I disagree on just one point you made: There are no "owners" to the article. I would like to believe that, however, this article would appear to be a privately owned company. And unfortunately, unlike a publicly owned company, that means the ceo has the final say. Some of the regular contributors seem to think that if an editor doesn't have thousands of edits under his belt editing wikipedia, then that person lacks intelligence. It's obviously not the case. But as I said earlier, I welcome your opinion, and I'm happy to comply. I will attempt to improve the article little by little providing thorough explanations in the summary boxes connected to the corrections and try to include why the previous content was unsatisfactory. I'll do my best to the utmost in noting the corrections in that alloted space. It doesn't seem to make sense to purposely revert the article from a much improved and reputably sourced format back to a laughable poorly written grammatical state. I believe my mistake was speeding up the process of editing in one shot. So since I see it caused an issue with some of the contributors, then I will comply with your suggestion of slowly improving the page and providing accurate, thorough, and detailed summaries to complement those improvements. Since my access has been blocked, I'm unable to post this response on the talk page for the The Fugitive. I can only edit my talk page. As soon as my block expires, I'll repost this message to that talk page so others can see it, and be aware of my compliance. Moovi (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, generally mass edits at a single shot without any prior discussion will be taken in a manner that may seem like ownership, but more realistically is against most normal editing processes, and editors will act quickly to return this mass edits. When the block is over, use the Fugitive talk page to list out your concerns and suggested improvements, wait for editors to agree, and then making the changes should be okay - in smaller, per-section chunks. --M ASEM  (t) 23:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. In the edit summary box, I will briefly note the subject matter that requires dramatic improvement, then I will briefly outline upgrades when making small changes at a time. Moovi (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, don't use the edit box for that - use the talk page to list out all the details that you think need improvement. The edit summary box should be exactly that - an edit summary to note what changes you made, and should not be a replacement for discussion (yes, the revents leading to that include some of that mis-use and thus trouts around to all involved for not engaging in the talk page, but that's hardly an offenseable problem. --M ASEM (t) 23:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to wait for other editors to agree? ... I can outline all the problems of the page, but that seems a little obvious. As I mentioned earlier, the state of the article is in a laughable grammatical state. Thats self explanatory! ... Any editor looking at it would agree. Plus, if I remove unsourced content, or content thats been sourced with poor references, like fan based user-edited websites; an editor doesn't have to wait for approval for that. ........ WP:OR content should never be inserted into an article to begin with. User C.Fred mentioned all editors are entitled to make small brief changes at a time, but that it should be properly summarized so as to avoid a conflict. If a conflict arises, then the talk page should be utilized to amend differences. Moovi (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What may be "obvious" to you may be consistent with policy (I don't know, I'm just saying). C.Fred is correct that making small changes are generally correct, but because of the previous edit warring, you should proceed with caution. Making any change before explaining what you are anticipating to do on the talk page will likely be considered as more edit warring. We know you have a problem with the page's current status, you should instead first explain the intentions and make sure there are no major objections.  There is no deadline to get this right. --M ASEM  (t) 00:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied that we're engaging in this conversation. I find it intuative. I'd first like to say though, that I'm not trying to attack you in any way. I'm just trying to comprehend the situation and relay what seems like the correct course of action. Now when you say,  I don't know, I'm just saying  -  it appears that the policy is not uniform. I don't believe there's a wikipedia editing rule that says you have to provide an outline summary on a talk page before making any contributions to a page. Now although we had an issue with edit warring, the other editor also made a number of reverts in succession. Does that policy apply to him as well?  Does he have to outline every particular change he intends to make on talk page first before actually making a contribution?  It doesn't sound right. If I see a claim on the page that contains no proper citation, me or someone else is entitled to delete it, and should properly note the change in the summary box. I don't believe I have to insert a paragraph noting the article's shortcomings, and then have to wait a few hours or a few days to get a consensus that an unsourced claim is a piece of WP:OR. You don't sound too sure of yourself. I believe its a standard policy to make a brief edit with an attached summary explaining the edit to avoid conflict or confusion. Moovi (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Because you have made edits that were rejected on the page, we're following Bold, revert, discuss. If there was a completely new article that you were making your first edit, that would be the "Bold" and completely in line - you wouldn't need any discussion or the like though as caution, again small changes are more accepted than large bulk ones. But as for this page it was reverted, you should be careful of any other edits until the discussion has taken place. Otherwise, it may be seen as edit warring to make changes (even after this block and warning) to your preferred version. --M ASEM  (t) 00:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand and respect your point. However, your comment stating: Otherwise, it may be seen appears to be unfounded and opinionated. As an example, lets say a particular section of content contains 3 or 4 sentences of subject matter containing two references of which one is sourced by a user-edited fan based website. As an editor, I'm freely entitled to delete the sentenced sourced by the non-reputable and unreliable source. I'm also entitled to insert 10 or 15 sentences of more properly and correctly sourced information to supplement and provide accurate information related to the section. Following that, if I insert a brief edit summary detailing my minor improvement, that cannot be taken as a resurgence of starting an edit war. I'm making a meaningful brief improvement to the subject matter of the article. I don't need permission to do that. If someone has a conflict of interest, then editors can voice their opinions on how to re-correct the content on the talk page. Or let's just say I accidentally misspelled two or three words during my brief edit. Then another editor can correct the grammar without even utilizing the talk page. Another editor is freely entitled to do that. An example like that is an example of improving the readability and content of the subject matter. It's not an example of edit warring. Moovi (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, in this very specific situation it can be, if you do not check in with the talk page on what you are doing before you do it. While you may believe your edits are "right" for this article, you may be stepping on previously established consensus (even if it involves using a fan site). Consider if the edits you were doing were the first edits you made on this page.  If they were a problem, they would revert and then you'd be expected to discuss them on the talk page.  But you're well past that point here; you don't have that freedom of being "bold" without stepping on toes you've already stepped on, and making those same edits (even if in small chunks with appropriate edit summaries) prior to any discussion will be seen as edit warring towards your preferred version, and per WP:EW, you may be blocked much faster and for a longer period. Ask at the talk page before making the edits, even if you 100% convinced you are improving the work. --M ASEM  (t) 00:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can briefly outline the problem areas of the article on the talk page. But I have a quick question. Who exactly are you referring to when you say toes you've already stepped on ?    Minus the rollbackers, there's only one editor who initiated the issue with my editing. My original improvement came about 3 days ago. The editor who exihibited WP:OWN qualities is the toe that I stepped on?  That qualifies as a legitimate reason for me to make an outline of what needs work on the page? But he gets to freely edit the article. Meanwhile, he was the editor who initially deleted my work to begin with, without even taking it to the talk page in the first place! ! !   That seems like a double standard. Moovi (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your assertion of the group of editors owning the page is in bad faith. When a new editor comes to a page and makes 20k+ bytes worth of changes, it is completely in line to revert all the changes if there's no clear reasoning in the edit summary. There's no indication in any other discussions that there is any other ownership going on. --M ASEM  (t) 02:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's fairly difficult to summarize 20kb worth of content into a two sentence dialog box. I didn't know I was committing a crime by improving a 3rd-grade grammar article to something a few notches short of a "good article" status. Can I have the block lifted so I can insert the areas of improvement needed on the talk page; and then have editors begin the process of reviewing it? ... Moovi (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is fairly difficult to summarize 20kb of changes into a two-sentence dialog box. That's why it's bad practice to make such wholesale changes. And when multiple editors disagree with your changes, one of the first things to do is go in much smaller pieces. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue was raised and pointed out. Can the block be lifted now, so I can begin the process on the talk page of initiating changes? Can it be removed so I don't have to wait another 12 hours? Moovi (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's Masem's block, and I may not unblock you if he objects. (Admins' version of no edit warring.) That said, I agree with letting the block be lifted early, with the understanding that you need to discuss and get consensus for your changes—and that you won't get a lot of slack if you engage in any further edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the unblock as Moovi has acknowledged the proper next steps for further editing on The Fugitive. --M ASEM  (t) 02:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I'm watching The Fugitive and seeing you edit war again (eg, after the additional box office info you added was removed, you should have not restored it at all; that's what WP:BRD means. You should have discussed why it was removed on the talk page. (My take, not meant as a final answer on this, is that most film articles don't go too far into the tail of revenues a film makes unless it is something unusual, like a second resurgance later in its run. However, this is by no means authorative.) --M ASEM (t) 04:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Masem, do have an email for correspondence? Moovi (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:FugitiveLimited.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:FugitiveLimited.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The_Fugitive
Good edits this evening here. Cheers! –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 01:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ty. Just trying to improve where I can. Moovi (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 12:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes ... and better in small doses! –&#32;

Added WP:ALT
Clever what you've done here I have been wondering whether or not, you could edit/end it from Summary downwards. What do you think? –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 08:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Gareth, I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say edit/end it from "Summary" downwards. Could you explain further? Moovi (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure! When I hover over the poster, the text appears, thus:

File:The Fugitive movie.jpg Then your descriptive text ...

Then,

Summary

Description: The Fugitive movie poster Source: © 1993 Warner Bros. All Rights Reserved.

Et cetera, et cetera ...

I am probably talking nonsense, but I wondered if all the "et cetera" could be removed. –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 11:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well Gareth, I'm not entirely sure if it can. There might be a way to remove that descriptive motion picture information, although I don't know how to execute it. On my computer, when I hover my mouse over the film poster, it actually doesn't even display the ALT text. I suppose I have to modify my browser settings to comply with that modification for viewing. Moovi (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To change the subject, do you possess the film? I have today got myself the disc. –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 16:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't worry about it ... it was just a thought.


 * Gareth, I own the film in Video on Demand format. I can view the film online or stored from my computer. I have an external DVD player connected to my computer, but as of yet, I don't own the DVD version. As far as Blu-Ray is concerned, I'm sure there's a noticeable difference in image quality, but I don't have a Blu-ray player. I first viewed this film when I was in high school on VHS cassette in the early 1990s. I didn't get around to seeing it in the theaters though when it was originally released. Moovi (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 17:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. I don't have Blu-ray either.  DVD suits me fine and I still use VHS—have both linked to my TV via a "splitter" –&#32;