Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:34, 16 December 2017

Archives

Archive 1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Welcome to my Talk Page!If you are leaving a note, please remember to be civil and not to include any personal attacks, and please remember to sign your message. This talk page is automatically archived, so if you don't see your thread anymore, please start a new one.

Thor cont'd

Thought I'd give you a heads up there was a recent discussion at MOS:FILM (link) in an attempt to clarify best wording of the RT statement. I can understand that in a recently released film, the date can be omitted if that's your preference, but other changes and enhancements were made based on input from multiple editors. If you don't agree with these, I recommend starting a new thread there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of that discussion, and it specifically applies to films released before Rotten Tomatoes existed, so it doesn't apply to this film. Also, the specific wording used for this statement is highly debated at articles like this, so I think major changes should be discussed with that in mind, in case a change needs to be made across several articles. But again, the discussion you have linked to is not applicable in this situation. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Despite the discussion beginning over other concerns, editors did weigh in on how they felt the RT statement should be phrased. Adding the date at the beginning of the statement is the only part that pertains to the pre-RT discussion. The rest of the statement can apply to any film. Some of the concerns raised, such as this one, have nothing to do with pre-RT films. I'm not going to go through articles changing it to this format for the sake of doing so, but I think there's a good reason to avoid the "/" in place of "out of" when writing a ratio in plain text. Other minor changes that reduce the use of unnecessary commas also make sense. If you disagree with the way the statement is presented in the guideline, it might be a good idea to bring it up at some point. I wouldn't oppose further tweaking if you see a reason to do so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Adamstom.97. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; currently Misplaced Pages needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere 08:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Adamstom.97. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Infinity Wars edits

I believe that much of the info in the intro to the article is excessive, to the point where it's not summarizing the article as a whole as much as it is simply parroting information from later in the article. For instance, and probably my chief concern is. that the lead specially notes that the title was changed from Infinity Wars part 1, to simply Infinity Wars and it gives the date to when that change occurred. This is not summary material, this is a very specific detail that people would normally look for in the production section. Putting it up in the lead makes the article as a whole look sloppy. --Deathawk (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If you take issue with specific wording then feel free to give it a c/e, but the lead is supposed to summarise the key points. You shouldn't just delete half of the summary because you don't like it. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't delete half the summary, I deleted two sentances at most, and much of the information there I waould still consider excessive even with rewording. In my opinion what's happening is that the article is trying to summarize a narrative, where a clear one does not exist. Look at the lead for Ant Man or the original Avengers. These read like natural evolution summarizing the major points, the lead for Infinity Wars however reads like someone mistakingly put production section info in the lead. --Deathawk (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Look again, you deleted as close to half of the paragraph as possible. And look at those other articles you mentioned, they have the same writer and director info. The only thing different about this one is the mention of the title change, and that has been a pretty big and notable thing with the film, which is why it was deemed noteworthy enough for the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Posting this on your talk page...

...since you appear unwilling to remain to remain focused on article content, and it'll be a cold day in Muspel before I get into another back and forth about user behaviour on an article talk page.

You do realize that if you make an off-topic, uncivil remark and are asked to strike, and refuse as you did here, that can be taken as an indication that you are refusing to abide by our core conduct policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA despite having been warned, right? You can be blocked for that. It's actually worse than edit-warring or violating our content policies, as far as how the community and the admin corps are willing to treat it: veteran accounts are almost never blocked for edit-warring unless their owners are not only tendentious editors but are careless about it, and usually the most you will get for content violations is a TBAN.

You really should be more considerate of others when using the talk pages: I have just as much of a right to be there as you do, and your constantly making me feel unwelcome (going back several years now) has never been appreciated. But this new aggressive streak you appear to be on is totally unacceptable.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I thought I'd comment here, given that Adam's talk page is on my watchlist, and I agree with much of what he said on the Agent Carter talk page. Just as you've got every right to be here, so does he. He has the right to contribute to as many articles as he wants, with as much content as he wants, and especially with the amount that he's contributed to such articles, he has the right to defend the content and articles. Especially when you return to a year-old discussion to claim some sort of victory, while we know that Misplaced Pages is not about WINNING, and dictate that you can add tags without revert to reliably sourced content and after the discussion has long concluded, without at least an attempt at discussion first, whether on an article or user talk page.

Yes, I've got a right to post this very message as well, so don't believe you can say that I do not. We're sick of editors like you, coming in like you have on this very talk page, throwing around threats of administrators and blocks and bans, and demanding that we respect you, when what we give you is simply a reflection of exactly what you've given us. Treat others how you expect to be treated. Don't expect civility when you won't act civil to us, when you don't do the same for us, with all of your holier-than-thou acting.

You complain about personal attacks and feeling unwelcome, and yet I recall you talking about how t's pretty rich seeing someone who has on at least one occasion taken the side of the sectarian cabal of editors who rule over the Marvel Cinematic Universe articles with an iron fist to accuse another user of OWN behaviour. If you want editors to respect you, then practice what you preach. You've been warned as well. After that comment and others thoughts you've enlightened us with, it is clear that the only reason you return to contribute to these articles and talk pages, when you've stated you have little interest in them, is to start further drama and drive editors out. This is totally unacceptable. -- Alex 12:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Could all of you folks stop putting words in my mouth? Alex, you should strike the bit about me "claiming some sort of victory" (I did no such thing), and I honestly have no idea what you are talking about with most of the rest of your comment. Adding maintenance templates to questionable material is not vandalism, and your defense of Adam's claim that it is (which is what I assume you mean by "add tags without revert") is out of line. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

And there you are again, with your "strike this, strike that", dictating editors yet again on what they can and cannot post. Amusing how you ask that we remove attacks - do you see us asking you to remove your attacks? How about you strike your entire initial post? I find it a blatant personal attack. You won't? No, I refuse to strike any part of my post, I stand by every word of it and would repeat it all again. If you believe that I am putting words into your mouth, or that any of us are, that is clearly because we are reading your posts and interpreting them as blatant incivility towards us. Stop trying to claim innocence and naivety, and say you have no idea what we're talking about. You do. You just don't want to admit that you are the bigger part of the problem here. Get yourself in line. -- Alex 12:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Adam, you may also be interested in the above editor's side-discussions at User talk:Jack Sebastian#Re: and User talk:Curly Turkey#What am I gonna do... -- Alex 21:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Adamstom.97. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Jessica Jones (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Deadline

Jessica Jones (season 2) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Deadline

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Deadline

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Misplaced Pages policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chapter 1 (Legion)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chapter 1 (Legion) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AlexTheWhovian -- AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Spiderverse

My problem with your section is that it contained a lot of what I would say, excessive details which genunily make production sections hard to read. For instance within the sentance where it was announced there are five names attached as producers. This is excessive and is not in service of the readers. The section could be best summed up "The project was officially announced on X date" which gives the same general level of information but is a much easier read. I'm trying to avoid sections that read like press releases here. --Deathawk (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleting details is not in service of the reader. If you think it is hard to read, then you could try giving it a c/e, but you don't just get to take out stuff you don't like. And there is plenty of issues with your edit, so blanket reverting my restore is not going to help your case here. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that the details there were excessive. As I mentioned in the first edit the info already exists elsewhere in the article where it's better served. Yes it is important to list producers but listing them in the prose just make it unnecessarily hard to read. The problem with producers, in particular,is that they can be anything from just a simple purse holder all the way to a phantom director, if the film has five producers the roles are more likely the former. The goal of Misplaced Pages is not to include every detail that can be found about something, but rather to serve the article or section of the article, thus putting this info in the production section does more harm than good. --Deathawk (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop

You are edit-warring again in The Gifted article. To date, you have reverted three different times. If you revert again. I will file a complaint at AN3R. Why is it so hard for you to simply seek a consensus on the talk page? Why do you have to fight every damn time you misinterpret Misplaced Pages's editing policies and guidelines? I (and others) will absolutely see your edits as tendentious editing. I strongly urge you to stop reverting and seek the counsel of edmins or other experienced editors to assist you in increasing your understanding of things like tense usage and basic interpretation of sources.
Please consider this your last warning prior to filing a complaint. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)