| Revision as of 13:55, 31 October 2009 view sourceCrotchety Old Man (talk | contribs)3,365 editsm Reverted 1 edit by Fences and windows identified as vandalism to last revision by TheWeakWilled. (TW)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:19, 17 September 2021 view source Primefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators209,642 editsm →top: removal of a template following a TFDTag: AWB |
| (126 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
<div class="user-block"> ] You have been '''indefinitely ]''' from editing for making ] in . You are not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at '''{{NoSpamEmail|info-en|wikimedia.org}}''' and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. ] <small>(])</small> 00:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-lblock --> |
|
{{Archive box collapsible|]<br />]<br />]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
<!--spacing--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== 3RR note. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, please take care and stop reverting on the ] article as you are close to a violation, try to wait and discuss. Regards. ] (]) 20:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:No need. 3RR doesn't apply to BLP violations, which is what this was. ] (]) 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::No problem, I thought it was fair to comment to you both. ] (]) 21:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, go right ahead and keep removing that. Good work. ] (]) 22:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Apology == |
|
|
|
|
|
Re ]: Thanks for your explanation in answer to my question. I'm sorry I made one-sided comments when apparently the other user had been being more uncivil than you. To the extent that I've examined your edit, I agree that your version of the article is better. <span style="color:Blue; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 22:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Because you have a smiley face in your sig, there's no hard feelings. ] (]) 22:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::LOL! Thanks! <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>] (]) 22:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Question == |
|
|
|
|
|
But can you honestly say with a straight face that responding in kind (whether it is kiddie template warnings, personal attacks, harassment, or whatever) would have greater chances of resolving/dissolving dispute/controversy than if you took the right way out? ] (]) 17:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Not sure what you're subtly accusing me of, so just come out and say it. ] (]) 18:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::What you seemed to suggest at ANI was that if an user gives you a kiddie template warning, then we should issue such template warnings back - so my question was to clarify whether this approach is effective in resolving/dissolving dispute/controversy. Let me reword it for your benefit. If you encountered template warnings/attacks/whatever, how would you respond? Don't you think it would be appropriate to respond in a way that shows the user how they should've approached the issue to begin with? ] (]) 20:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I was not suggesting anything. Just pointing out that WebHamster did the very same thing to me. But he's gone now, and life is back to normal. ] (]) 21:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And WebHamster wasn't worthy of any level-headed discussion or maturity, since he failed miserably at exhibiting any of those traits. ] (]) 21:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Re: Constantine == |
|
|
|
|
|
They aren't cites supporting the content. Look again. ] (]) 12:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:"According to the DVD commentary..." implies a primary source, and is easily verifiable. Direct citations to the novel could be added, which is why I tagged the section for refimprove. ] (]) 12:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::The information about the DVD commentary is not clear at all. Are we talking about plot or production? Design or CGI? It isn't clear at all, except that that it is shoved in there to make it look like the first and last sentence are supported. Then, it follows with a comparison between the book and the film, but this is entirely unsourced. Again, we see the use of a source making it look like it supported, but the reference is only to the book. Same problem. Next we see another description from the book and a comparison to the film, again unsourced. There's nothing salvageable here, it's pure OR. ] (]) 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Oh I'm on your side, don't worry. I've deleted a ton of listcruft crap from the article already. But someone at least put minimal effort into the section. Give the fanboys a few weeks, and if (when) they don't improve it, go ahead and remove it. ] (]) 12:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm definitely with you on that. Unless it's egregious, I tend to leave the content in for a bit, however, this appears borderline. I'm also unhappy about what was done to the plot by a recent editor. Could you take a whack at it? It should be about 700 words, not 70,000. :) ] (]) 12:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Wow. Didn't even notice that. I thought there was a shorter version a while back. I might check the page history to see if that could be salvaged. ] (]) 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please stop edit warring, as you've done with the ] page. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Also, please remember to remain civil and calm. Thank you. –''']''' | ] 03:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Critical Response section of The Proposal 2009 Touchstone Film == |
|
|
|
|
|
you might want to take a look at this review and use an excerpt for the Critical Response section. Noticed a few editors felt the write up was a tad "light". If you take the time you will find this review has some good stuff worth including. The review runs from page 182 through 191. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://midnighttracks.net/2009/page182 |
|
|
|
|
|
Good luck! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 10:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Response notification == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Crotchety, I responded to your posts on ] . --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 16:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Shining == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Man (or may I call you Crotchety?), |
|
|
Actually the "Comparisons" section of "The Shining" still has too many citations from main primary materials such as the novel itself and not enough from secondary sources (other critics), which still leaves it marginally in OR territory according to WP guidelines. However, as noted in earlier talk page discussions, the issue of Jack Torrance's characterization is easy to cite since it has been discussed ad infinitum given that it was Stephen King's biggest problem with Stanley Kubrick's film and King was very vocal about it, and it was the prime motivator behind King's desire to do a TV remake. Ergo, easy to cite. Other issues like the characterization of Danny and the motivation of the ghosts are easy to spot, but vastly less discussed in easy-to-find secondary sources. In essence, half the subject has been commented on widely (due to it being a hot-button issue with King), and half the subject little discussed. However, a WP discussion probably needs to cover ALL the differences not just the ones that got Stephen King hot and bothered. The Danny section (and motivation/ghosts section) is still problematic since it cites primary sources (the book itself). However, I'm inclined to view this as a legit case of ].<br /> |
|
|
I remain frustrated that since Stephen King and Stanley Kubrick have the same initials, I can not abbreviate either to SK.<br /> |
|
|
Regards,--] (]) 17:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 4th Duke of Aosta == |
|
|
|
|
|
Now that Imbris has requested (multiple times) for me to stop contacting him on his talkpage, I see your fellas points. 'Tis too bad, though. ] (]) 22:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Bah, if he doesn't want to talk - don't talk to him. When he attacks you just report him... you don't even have to notify him now that he's banned you from his talkpage. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Oh well, he aint the first to make such a request of me. I'll survive. ] (]) 22:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Don't let it get you down, you'll get over him soon, you'll see ;D --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 23:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Please do not undo changes to the Richard Gere discussion == |
|
|
|
|
|
Crotchety: Please do not undo edits to the Richard Gere discussion. My addition was in good faith, and in my opinion was well thought out and written. With all due respect I think your actions are inappropriate, considering that you are quite clearly on the opposite side of this controversy, and even if you were neutral this is a clear violation of wikipedia's policy: |
|
|
|
|
|
"Undoing another person's edit is known as reverting (or reversion). Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore reverting is not to be undertaken without good reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
Especially, reverting is not to be used as a way to "ignore" or "refute" an editor with whom one happens to disagree, or to fight battles or make a point. Misuse of reversion in these ways may lead to administrator warnings or blocking."" |
|
|
|
|
|
Moreover, I think it a little presumptuous of you to think that you can unilaterally adjudicate when a certain controversy is "done". If you no longer wish to take part in this discussion, please remove the page from your watch list. If you have something new to add, please feel free to respond to my post. Thank you! ] (]) 20:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Crotchety: Rather than responding to my message, I see you have decided to petulantly revert the page again. This is your final warning: if you continue to revert posts just because you disagree with the poster I will report you for rules violations. Stop trolling. Thank you. ] (]) 22:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== October 2009 == |
|
|
] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you ] while interacting with other editors, which you did not on ]. Take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-agf1 --> '''] (] * ])''' 00:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
wikimedia.org and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text