Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:34, 7 February 2007

Your username

You might be asked to change it, as its implications are vulgar. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Is implication a crime in Canada? Or do you mean insinuation? Is snow a bad word? Is yellow a bad color? Or do you object to the juxtaposition of the two words as not being Canadian enough? BTW - as I have previously stated the name has nothing to do with Canada and was created long before I stumbled upon the "Hollywood North" Canadian film commission PR page.Donteatyellowsnow

Assumption

I believe you called: User:Ckatz, User:Skookum1, and myself "The people from the "Hollywood North" site". First of all, that's an assumption based upon no evidence, nor will you find any since its not true. I find it rather offensive that'd you be spreading those rumours around Misplaced Pages and anyone with any insight would see that we've been around Misplaced Pages long before the article Hollywood North. I am warning to to refrain from spreading tasteless rumours about other people. Mkdw 07:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can click on that page's history and see that you guys are REGULAR contributors to it. YOU even wrote as many as 44 different entries between Christmas Eve and Christmas day alone (apparently staying up all night to do it). That's not just some innocent "bystander". And I don't really understand what "rumors" you think I'm spreading? I don't know you. All I know is the attacks you have made against me on this page and the "Hollywood North" page and that you are a regular contributor to it:

• (cur) (last) 08:04, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Vancouver)
• (cur) (last) 08:01, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Vancouver)
• (cur) (last) 07:54, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (Image)
• (cur) (last) 07:29, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (references)
• (cur) (last) 07:28, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Toronto)
• (cur) (last) 07:13, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Vancouver)
• (cur) (last) 06:59, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (ISBN)
• (cur) (last) 06:42, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (removal of redundant information)
• (cur) (last) 06:40, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) m (grammar)
• (cur) (last) 06:38, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (addition)
• (cur) (last) 03:56, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (layout)
• (cur) (last) 03:39, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (Statisics Canada reference)
• (cur) (last) 03:34, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) m (→Toronto)
• (cur) (last) 03:33, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Vancouver)
• (cur) (last) 03:30, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Toronto)
• (cur) (last) 03:22, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Vancouver)
• (cur) (last) 03:18, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Toronto)
• (cur) (last) 03:14, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (Side sectioning)
• (cur) (last) 03:10, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) m (→Vancouver)
• (cur) (last) 03:10, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Vancouver)
• (cur) (last) 03:07, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Toronto)
• (cur) (last) 03:07, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Toronto)
• (cur) (last) 02:52, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Vancouver)
• (cur) (last) 02:50, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Toronto)
• (cur) (last) 02:49, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Toronto)
• (cur) (last) 02:42, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) m (→Toronto)
• (cur) (last) 02:40, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Vancouver)
• (cur) (last) 02:39, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (trial)
• (cur) (last) 02:33, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Toronto)
• (cur) (last) 02:24, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Toronto)
• (cur) (last) 02:22, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) m (→Vancouver)
• (cur) (last) 02:21, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Vancouver)
• (cur) (last) 02:16, 25 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (Toronto)
• (cur) (last) 22:34, 24 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Vancouver)
• (cur) (last) 22:26, 24 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (Second for Television)
• (cur) (last) 22:17, 24 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (→Television)
• (cur) (last) 22:13, 24 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (Television)
• (cur) (last) 22:11, 24 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (External Links)
• (cur) (last) 22:08, 24 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (Vancouver)
• (cur) (last) 21:37, 24 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (BC Film Commission reference)
• (cur) (last) 21:35, 24 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (another reference)
• (cur) (last) 21:18, 24 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (References section)
• (cur) (last) 21:18, 24 December 2006 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) (reference) - Donteatyellowsnow

• • Wow, so you're saying the number of times a person edits an article is proof that they work for a company. You also realize that Misplaced Pages is not on the PST time zone so all the time stamps are not proportionate to the hours of my own time zone. For example the time right now is 10:03am on Jan 31st for me right now, but my timestamp automatically done by Misplaced Pages will show a different time. If you continue you will be reported for personal attacks and rumour spreading. Mkdw 18:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Alright, so Misplaced Pages stamps everything 5 hours in front of my time. So realistically those edits were made between 4:00pm and 3:00am. Hardly all night and personally, I stay up late on my weekends, especially Christmas eve. Not much else to do but wait for Christmas anyway. Why don't you think about your evidence instead of your accused finding out for you that its uselss and meaningless. Also, you should be aware of your own rumours before playing innocent. As I stated above, I do not appreciate being accused of working for Hollywood North (the company) or any Canadian 'propaganda machine'. I especially don't enjoy being called a vandal when if you review all those chanegs above you will see I only inserted references, ISBN numbers and {{cite web}} templates to YOUR references. How is adding more information to citations vandalism. Mkdw 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North

I noticed that you recently readded some content which had been removed by Mkdw. That's fine, we're supposed to make bold edits. But I noticed that you tagged your edit as minor. Minor edits are only for truly minor things like spelling errors and formatting issues, etc. Some users have their preferences set to not show minor edits on their watchlists so they wouldn't be aware that a change was made. For that reason it is usually considered bad etiquette to mark real changes as minor. Thanks. --JGGardiner 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North

I'm pretty sure your last edit to Hollywood North actually contained worthwhile, constructive information. However, because of your past edits, especially the tone of those edits, it seems editors are inclined to just revert your edits without paying too much attention.

That said, your last edit (with the George Lucas sourcing) also contained a cornucopia of POV language, unencyclopaedic insinuations and the like. If you want your productive edits to last, you've got to start formatting them in a productive light, and steer clear of the kind of commentary that has upset other editors in the past.

That's just my perspective - your mileage may vary. WilyD 21:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks WilyD. Point taken. However, you may not be aware that these people have reverted ALL of my edits from the very beginning. They are on a POV mission to promote Canada as a film location and Wiki is, for some reason, allowing it. I'm just trying to assert another side to the story. Donteatyellowsnow

Well, I don't know the whole history, since I've only seen what happened since the AfD nomination of Hollywood North. The wiki allows it because they're making sourced edits that happen to be true, and using fairly neutral terms to describe it.

In all likelihood, your biggest problem is really your choice of language. The term you use typically imply strong judgements about the subject at hand, which puts up a red flag in the mind of most Misplaced Pages editors. Misplaced Pages shouldn't promote nor denigrate anything, but the Hollywood North article doesn't promote Canada as a film location, it only notes that the term Hollywood North is sometimes used to refer to Vancouver or Toronto - given the proliferations of portmanteaus of Hollywood and other location names to describe centres on film industry, (i.e. Bollywood) this shouldn't even be surprising.

Again, asserting a side of the story is a red flag phrase that will make most editors uppity. Rather than assert any side of the story, why not present neutral, verifiable facts and let them speak for themselves? Your source article about George Lucas has information that appears relevent and appropriate for the Hollywood North article but I expect that as long as your language choices imply strong judgements, other editors will continue to revert you believing you to be pushing a POV.

Ultimately, It becomes a question of which you'd rather do: Keep changing the relevent articles so they take a strong POV and get quickly reverted, or try to find a neutral comprimise so that your objections are noted where verifiable. WilyD 15:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood disambig

Hi. I know that you didn't listen to my advice regarding minor edits. That's fine. If you don't want to observe Misplaced Pages etiquette, it is your right to be rude (to a certain extent, see Misplaced Pages:Civility) if you want to be. However, you should know the more important policy regarding reversions, the 3RR. Violations of this are probably the most common way for editors to be blocked so you really should be familiar with this. Thanks. --JGGardiner 22:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just got your advice. So don't go jumping to conclusions. BTW, it's so funny that you are implying that I'm not civil but that your Canadian buddies are. They have been on an editing rampage, deleting anything that they are not familiar with and writing on subjects that they know nothing about. Perhaps you should lecture them instead of me. Donteatyellowsnow

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you were being rude but when I said you could avoid some of the finer points of "wikiquette" I just didn't want to give you the wrong idea because actual rudeness can get you in trouble around here. When a user is new, I like to let them know how things work around here because it is, unfortunately, quite easy to get off on the wrong foot and end up in a rut fighting with other editors. I don't want to lecture you, just let you know some of the rules here. The other editors, as far as I'm aware, know the rules. If they get in trouble for breaking them, that's their own fault. I just think that everyone should be aware of them.

As for the whole Hollywood issue itself, I think that you have a point that the term is somewhat nebulous. But the best way to go about it is not this edit war. The AFD already resolved that this article is going to be here for at least a while. My advice to you would be to start a discussion on the talk page. When people talk the other editors are usually willing to make compromises. In fact one of the criticisms of Misplaced Pages is that we compromise with each other too much and can end up watering down articles. I think most of the other editors would agree to at least saying the term is used widely in Canada and also for the Northern CA area as well. I think that is good advice in general. Edit wars never help anyone and usually just result in the status quo but with bitter feelings. The talk pages are really very helpful for resolving most issues. Cheers. --JGGardiner 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing warnings

Please note that while selectively editing your talk page to remove warnings may not constitute vandalism, the practice is generally frowned upon. Agent 86 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Frown away. I frown back at your vandalism and arrogance. Donteatyellowsnow

Please stop. You now appear to be editing anything related to Canadian film, deleting and "fact" tagging. This all seems to stem from your opposition to the term "Hollywood North", and your objections to the cleanup of Runaway production. --Ckatz_spy 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No. You stop. If you don't want people to contribute, then don't create and/or edit Wiki pages. There are going to be people who have a different take on things than you do and they are free to contribute however they want to -- and in fact are encouraged to do so by Wiki. There are some missing facts from a lot of pages (and considerable bias)... the pages I'm assuming you are refering to. There is no rule about what content any user may or may not contribute to nor anything that bans editors from contributing, fact-checking, and or editing even "Canadian" pages. If they need sources, they need sources! Tough luck. You should have caught that first! BTW -- apparently you think it is okay to fact tag and make profuse "warnings" about anything you don't like and yet when the shoe is on the other foot ... you don't want to wear it! Donteatyellowsnow

I've never said that you shouldn't contribute. My problem is with how you choose to do it. You claim bias, yet replace it with language that is far more biased. You insist on "balance", and yet you offer nothing of the sort. I think it is very telling that you choose to describe Canadian financial programs as "subsidies", while using "incentives" to describe the exact same actions on the part of American bodies. You claim that articles like Hollywood North are "advertising" for the Canadian production industry, yet use language such as "Tourists still come from around the world to see the sights and sounds of Hollywood", "Whether because of the guilt of "liberal" Hollywood producers having put their friends, neighbors and longtime coworkers out of work", and "the sweet lure of U.S. counterincentives". Where, exactly, is this "neutral" attitude that you profess to bring to the project? --Ckatz_spy 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No. You never outright said I "shouldn't contribute." Instead, you passive- aggressively sought out anything that I had written and then severely edited it or deleted it and you repeatedly have put warnings on my personal talk page. You have conspired (with the help of your more hostel Canadian "huckster" buddies) to delete or alter almost anything I have edited because you guys are a bunch of raving mad Canadian nationalists. It's funny that you mention subsidies. ACTUALLY, it was you who started changing the word subsidy into incentives. I noticed it and then started thinking about the implications of it -- what exactly were you trying to pull by removing a word such as subsidy which is a factual word for what the Canadian government was doing. That's bias, my friend. The FACT is that the Canadian government started using SUBSIDIES -- corporate welfare -- to give to U.S. Hollywood productions to SUBSIDIZE Canadian labor. Those are the words that are used when it is discussed. What the Americans did, however, because it was a REACTION to the UNFAIR TRADE by Canada was to offer "counter-incentives" (and this did NOT initially include any kinds of subsidies but was rather geared towards making film permits easier to get and location shooting less of a hassle, etc). Later, the Americans had to introduce COUNTER-SUBSIDIES (tax breaks -- still not labor subsidies like Canada offers) in order to have any vague attempt at FAIR COMPETITION. What Canada was doing in effect was DUMPING low cost labor onto the North American market and the U.S. had to respond or face losing TEN BILLION DOLLARS in revenue and more than 50,000 jobs annually. Canada was aggressively seeking to steal away the film industry from its traditional home in the States, specifically from Los Angeles, California, more specifically from Hollywood, California. CANADA was the aggressor here; not the U.S. and not the Americans who are simply trying to level the playing field. But since you are blind to the flaws of the Canadian government and this pathetic corporate welfare scam that is being perpetrated on the Canadian people and since you have only become familiar with this topic AFTER you started deleting my material, you probably would not be aware of the finer linguistic points. Donteatyellowsnow

Look, again, I'm going to ask you to keep in mind who you're speaking to, and not just make wild accusations. You know perfectly well that I am not the one who "repeatedly... put warnings on (your) personal talk page", and that I've only made four entries here prior to this one. You also know that, while I have reverted your work where I felt it was necessary, my edit history shows that I have made numerous attempts to rewrite your material in a more neutral tone so that it can remain in the article - rather than just deleting it. I have also tried to discuss these articles with you, in the hopes of coming to some sort of consensus. (Again, referring to the article histories, you can see that I rewrote some of the "Runaway" material for the "Hollywood North" article, before it was removed.)

It is also really frustrating when you make presumptions about my motivation, or about my understanding of the subject. I've been familiar (not an "expert, I won't claim that) with the issues surrounding Canadian production for more than a decade and a half, not just since you chose to write about them on Misplaced Pages. More to the point, I'm not opposed to presenting all aspects of the issue - you'll note that I didn't support deleting "Runaway". I'd like to see the same approach from you - for example, that you wouldn't keep trying to define "economic runaway" as being solely about "subsidies" when there are (by the DGA's own definition) several other factors involved as well. If you want to see your viewpoint expressed on Misplaced Pages, you'll find it is much easier to accomplish if you work together with the other editors to reach consensus. --Ckatz_spy 18:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments; this is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. I have added this warning template to your own talk page because it is vandalism to alter the words of others; namely, changing the heading for this section. If you choose to remove comments or warnings from your talk page, fine, but to replace comments left by others is not only misleading, but constitutes vandalism. Agent 86 09:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Templates

Please stop removing maintenance notices from articles when the required changes have not been made. If you continue to disrupt maintenance processes you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Mkdw 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• In all fairness to this editor, if you're referring to your restoring the {{POV}} template on Hollywood North (see diff here]), then you should know that I removed the template, not this user. I did a big copyedit of that article and attempted to synthesize the competing versions and achieve something that was more balanced. As a result, I thought it was appropriate to remove the tag. You'll see that this editor hasn't edited that article since my last revision. I don't see any other recent edits by this user that might have triggered your warning, but if you are speaking of another incident I will stand corrected. Agent 86 18:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Runaway production. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Misplaced Pages without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RedRollerskate 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from your talk page; other users will utilize this page as a way of seeing past discussion, and removing things can be seen as disruptive if you appear to be trying to hide something. You may wish to consider archiving old discussions; take a look at the move page if you would like to learn more about moving and renaming articles. --RedRollerskate 00:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi DEYS. I just want to let you know that you can't keep removing tags. The whole point of tags is for other editors to let their opinion be known so as to avoid edit wars. You can not remove them because you disagree with them as they express only one editor's opinion. Indeed, the point is to say that two (or more) editors disagree, one thinks it is fine and the other think it is problematic for the reason that the tag states. In any event, tag removals are not exempt from the 3RR rule that I told you about earlier. You have already violated the 3RR rule today and could be blocked for that already. I won't report you because I don't usually do that. I've never actually. But another user might so please mind the rules from now on. Thanks. --JGGardiner 00:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)