Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:25, 10 August 2008

Hello, again

I see that you've abandoned editing under User talk:67.36.58.41 to edit under this IP number, so I thought I'd move some of the comments from over there to this talk page to remind you that you have yet to talk about the problems with your editing.

To begin with, here's the final comment there, from admin Barneca:

You need to respond to other editors' efforts at discussion

Misplaced Pages is a collaborative environment. Another editor has been leaving you messages for several days, and you continue to edit without replying. This won't do. Please discuss the issues he is asking to discuss, or I'm afraid I will have to block this IP from editing Misplaced Pages.

I haven't looked at any of your edits, and have no idea if they are brilliant, foolish, or somewhere in between. The key is, you need to discuss them, no matter how correct they are. I sincerely hope that when you next log on, your first edits are to a talk page, addressing some of Ed Fitzgerald's concerns. This IP will be blocked if you resume editing without discussion first.

Thank you. --barneca (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And then there are these questions and concerns from me:

Your edits

Please be more careful about the stuff you're deleting as being POV.

• If a show, film, TV series or whatever has received very good notices from reviewers, then calling it "critically acclaimed" is a fact, not a point of view, and it's fact that's worthy of inclusion in the lede paragraph, even in the lede sentence, because it helps to separate the run-of-the-mill from the noted.

• Speaking of which, the same is true of "noted". If a producer, actor, director or whatever has received a significant amount of notice for their work, then they are indeed "noted" and this can be said in the article.

• For an actor "Academy Award-winning" or "Emmy Award-winning", and for a musician or singer "Gramy Award-winning" are significant accomplishments which can legitimately be noted in the lede paragraph. For movies, "Academy Award-winning" could mean for makeup or special effects and can be deleted, although "Best Picture" should certainly be passed. (I quite agree with you in deleting "XXX Award-nominated" as not being significant enough to be included in the lede.)

• The age a person is when they die is significant. Please do not remove it. (I agree that the casual use of "the late" is unnecessary, and that "died" is to be preferred over "passed away."

• Regarding so-called "trivia" -- I you think that a list of unconnected information needs paring or editing, it's really much better to do the paring or editing you think is justified rather than simply slapping on a "trivia" tag and walking away. Rather than tagging 10 articles, it's better to fix one, since a tag is simply a goad to have other people do the work that you think needs to be done.

Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 16:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, "long running" and "popular" are not essentially opinions, they are descriptions, as long as they're supported by facts. Deleting them as POV is wrong, please don't do so. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, deleting a reference to the TV show Emergency being produced by Jack Webb's company on the basis that Webb has his own article is pretty specious reasoning -- after all, every blue Wikilink has its own article. Please be more selective in you editing.

Incidentally, you've continued to edit even after I posted my comment above. Now, you may dispute my points, that's fine, opinions can differ about these things, but not responding to another editor's legitimate query can, if carried on for a while, be a basis for being blocked, so it really does behoove you to engage in discussion here about your editing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That an album is "multi-platinum" is surely significant, as it's an indication of its success. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A person's age at death is a significant fact. That it's also in the infobox is irrelevant, since the info in the infobox is almost all duplicative or summary. The infobox doesn't exist to usurp information in the article, but to summarizes a skeleton of significant facts. Please don't remove facts from articles simply on the basis that they're duplicated in the infobox, or in the lede for that matter, which is also another kind of summary. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Over last"

Many of your edit summaries contain this phrase "over last". Can you please tell me what this means? Also, can you make sure your edit summaries are more accuraately descriptive of the action you've taken. For instance, saying that you've "simplified" a lede when what you've done is to remove "Academy Award-winning" is not really accurate. "Removed 'Academy Award-winning'" would be more appropriate. An inaccurate edit summary can mislead other editors as to the content of the edit, and are really worse than no edit summary at all, IMO. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of your edits

If a television program is watched by a lot of people, then it's "popular"; if a person writes a lot of books or films or whatever, that person is "prolific"; if someone dies 85 years after they were born, then they died "at age 85". These are not POV words, they are factual descriptions and should not be removed. Bob Barker was indeed a "veteran game show host" even before his long stint on The Price Is Right, saying so isn't redundant, it's descriptive information, and should not be removed.

It looks to me as if your are bound and determined to squeeze any vestige of color from our articles, which I think is a mistake. We should be factual, we should avoid adopting a particular point of view, but we don't have to be bland or boring.

Please stop these edits, which make of the vast majority of your editing, and discuss this issue here. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a particularly egregious example of your over-zealous removal of so-called "POV" -- that "Law & Order" is a "long-running" program is not a matter of opinion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The descriptive phrases and adjectives you are removing not only give the article a bit of color, they provide information, and hel the reader to identify who is being referred to. Certainly, one can say that "Tommy Lasorda appeared in the last episode", but not everyone necessarily knows who Lasorda is, and it shouldn't be necessary for them to click through the link when saying "Baseball Hall of Famer Tommy Lasorda" or "long-time Los Angeles Dodgers manager Tommy Lasorda" gives the reader a clue about who is being referred to, and may even jog their memory about Lasorda.

In summary, the material you're removing -- mention of awards won, descriptive phrases, adjectives, age at death, associates on other projects, etc. -- is helpful to the articles, and your edits are not. Please reconsider your editing strategy, or at least take some time to discuss it here. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So my questions and concerns remain, since you have not addresses them. Much of the stuff you're deleting is not "POV", as you've labelled it, it is descriptive; awards can be mentioned, when they've actually been won; popular TV shows can indeed be described as "popular"; the age of a person at death is significant; people who have great influence can be described as "influential"; and so on.

Let's talk about your edits, please, since I do not see that they're helpful to the project. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 05:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Since you haven't responded to my questions and my requests for you to discuss them, I've asked for help from other editors here. If you'd like to respond, please do so. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 05:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

24 hour block

Most of your edits, well intentioned or not, are specious - and by not responding to legitimate queries they are disruptive. I would comment that I (or others) will block any subsequent address until you start communicating. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)