Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hello, MisterShiney! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jauerback/dude.
Your recent editing history at Revolution (TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Hello, Thanks for the warning, in fact as soon as I was aware something like that was going down, I did start a thread on the page's talk page so as to try and come to a resolution. Can I ask if the other person has also been issued with a warning? MisterShiney(Come say hi)21:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Starting a discussion is the correct course of action. Continuing to revert is not. No, I did not warn the other individual. Although, they had two reverts in 24 hours, that 24 time period passed by the time I came across the edit war. You had two reverts within 15 minutes of each other. Jauerback/dude.23:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I realise that. That wasn't intentional, it was just I was online at the time lol, there would of been more of a delay had I not been online. I didn't just put her at the top either, I jigged it all about, grouping the family together because it is essentially about them. I am probably more defensive of the article because it is the first time that I have been involved in editing a wiki article. I am of course aware that it is a coalition of people writing and I don't own the rights to the stuff written, but doesn't stop the warm fuzzy feeling of seeing something you wrote online. MisterShiney(Come say hi)23:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Saying that, I am aware that I did revert back to the same edit again, after checking the NBC Website and seeing on there that the show is in fact from her viewpoint.
That very well may lead to you getting blocked now. I've requested page protection until this stupid edit war is over. Since I'm involved, I can't do anything myself. Jauerback/dude.23:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
WTF? You asked me to find a "reliable source" to back up my claim and I did..! Made the relevant changes, then without even acknowledging my new reliable source the other guy reverts it back. The other guy even reverted it back after another 3rd person made the changes! And he hasn't even been warned! I'm a big fan of people changing, but he has a history of edit warring! And no one has yet to provide me with the wiki policy that says that Characters are listed in order of their production credits!
Oh I understand them. I was just refering to my lack of understanding as to where it was referred to that cast had to be listed in order of where they appear in the credits, rather than their importance in the storyline. But lets just forget about it. Thank you for all your help in trying to sort it out. [[User:MisterShiney|MisterShiney(Come say hi)
Hello!
Hello, I saw that you signed up for WikiProject Film. I just wanted to welcome you on board and hope you will stick around. Check out our main forum to see ongoing discussions. Let me know if you have any questions! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages: check out the Teahouse!
Hello! MisterShiney,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Misplaced Pages for new editors to ask questions about editing Misplaced Pages, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 23:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
General Notes
I noticed a few recent edits of yours and wanted to share some cautions.
First, the warning on "blanking" does not apply when only a line is removed, as was done on Cassi Thomson. Blanking applies to removing a significant portion or the page itself, and the warning is only used if there is no good reason for the removal. See WP:VANDTYPES. The person who removed a redundant line on Cassi Thomson did the right thing. Please be more careful about warnings.
Second, the term "is" should be used for film, TV, and other works even if they no longer air because the work still exists. "Was" is only for something that has been destroyed or a person that's died. A series may be shown in syndication or movie replayed on TV, so "is" would be correct.
Third, it's not Wiki policy to always require a reference for a change, as you said with the IP user that changed the Marko character on Taken 2. That user explained their change, and films and TV especially do not always have references - if that was their name or that's what happened in the plot, that's what happened. If you have problems with changes, the procedure is to open a subject on the Talk page so editors can come to a concensus, not to demand another editor provide references for their work.
Also, when you state that something is according to Wiki policy, you should provide a link to that policy to ensure your statement is accurate.
As I said before, please be careful about changing or challenging the work of other editors, especially since you seem to be new to editing and aren't familiar with policies and guidelines.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up and advice. Oh and I haven't reverted it, because it is nit picking and really don't want to get caught up in an Edit War. But you do put a capital letter in titles, regardless of if they are put before or after a name. I am an English Teacher. MisterShiney(Come say hi)21:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm a writer. If it comes after the name and "the" precedes the title, no capitalization:
The aim of all articles it to get them to the highest standards. The highest recognised standard on WP is being classed as a Featured Article. The following film articles are of Featured standard; But I'm a Cheerleader, Fight Club, The Simpsons Movie and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The list is longer but these four show that if all character names are linked in a concise plot then a list is not needed, and that discussion of casting (Dano and Kazan are currently dating, stuff like that) is to be about how they became involved in the film. I have removed the list again because though the plot is a little bloated at the moment it actually links more actors than the cast list did. Feel free to find sources to do with the process of casting because that would add value to the article and improve it but refrain from a lazy revert edit, because a simple list (while in the WP:Film style guide) does not help the article towards being an FA. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
A talk section has been set up on the Article talk page feel free to come and discuss. In the meantime, I put the class list back in with some character details as per your recommendation in your previous summary of the article. MisterShiney (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't have time for games but this from the Shawshank log:
00:12, 14 July 2012 TheOldJacobite (talk | contribs) . . (25,324 bytes) (+14) . . (Reverted to revision 502108594 by Darkwarriorblake: Last good version; JTBX, do not accuse other editors of vandalism. (TW)) (undo)
So we are on the same page? Do you realise that my edits were mostly to point out the hypocrisy of the users who were reverting me for adding in important details eg sexual assault, but reverting me when I take away extra details. Infact when I took away so much as per the talk page everyone keeps saying, it still reads fine. But as you mentioned, and as I called out 3 months earlier, it is borderline vandalism to radically revise a plot and remove details.
--JTBX (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I really do not I am afraid. I see you making 7 similar edits in the space of a few hours and this is from several months ago. Nothing will have changed consensus wise in the space of a few months. MisterShiney(Come say hi)13:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
JTBX's post at Editor assistance
You might want to have a look at this. I am not telling you whether or how you should respond, but I do think you should be aware of his one-sided version of events. Cheers! ---The Old JacobiteThe '4516:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
and a month ago, from an admins page who tried to include similar changes . Its not about dropping things and letting them ago, that is simply another way of saying don't grow a spine and stand up to these people who are violating policies and owning articles. I don't even know what to do anymore, what a mess this encyclopedia has become. --JTBX (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The Road
Please add more of what you think should be done so we can work something out, thanks. Alternatively, watch the film (I know you hate it), and tell me what you think of the plot, if you have time.--JTBX (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Passenger 57
Hi,
I note that you have made an amendment to the article Passenger 57 which removed an image I had re-added to that article.
I note that the reasons given for your amendment were firstly, that images are not needed in the plot sections of film articles and secondly, that there may be copyright issues associated with the use of the image.
I note that you requested that if I disagreed with your analysis that I should discuss this with you.
I can advise that although I understand your reasons for amending the article, I am of the opinion that the amendment was not necessary.
Although images are not required for all plot sections of film articles on Misplaced Pages there is no rule forbidding their use. With regards to the copyright issues, these are dealt with on the page of the image itself. I have thoroughly read Misplaced Pages's policies on the use of images and understand when copyright infringements arise. I am satisfied that there is no copyright infringement with regards to the use of the image in the Passenger 57 article.
I have therefore amended the article to re-introduce the image (before I get an orphaned file message).
If you wish to discuss this with me further, please feel free to do so.
There is no need to be bullying, as per your talk page of which you do not tolerate. I feel that the current plot is lacking, I may have been one word over the 700 recommended limit but I do not feel that all of my additions should have been removed within seconds. I have been a user of Misplaced Pages for far longer than you, and would appreciate some mutual respect. PoliceChief (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Bullying? I am sorry..but where do you have that from? If you feel that is the case then please make a relevant post on an admin board. I was just pointing out that by adding plot bloats you were being disruptive. If you feel your content should be included, then you should discuss it on the talk page, which an experienced editor such as yourself should know, and not just revert the changes and completely hiding the summary hoping that no one would notice. I may not have been actively editing for long, but that does not mean that someone's edits are more important than other peoples. I would like to point out that since 2006 I have been editing occasionally as an IP user. Respect is something that is earned and not given without reason. MisterShiney✉22:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chicago Fire (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlie Barnett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Some concerns about first-party sources and self-published sources.
I am addressing some concerns about sources we're using in Skyfall article. As I feel that you're one of the main contributors, I would like to invite you to participate. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, I've noticed that you're a fan of The Matrix. The Matrix article is short on people, and there are only two editors there who know what they're doing now. Would you care to join us? It should've been a good article long ago. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
190.78.20.155 (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
where I am vandalizing?
I deleted the article? I am vandalized the article? what is your evidence and your source? Rockstar Games? that's not vandalize, I suggest you look the "talk" on the page.
I have. I suggest that you yourself look at the talk page where you will see that a consensus has been reached and that evidence has been provided. If you continue to be disruptive in your editing you will be reported further and may face an indefinite block from editing. MisterShiney✉08:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
quick note on punctuation
I noticed an edit comment you made, and I thought I would swing by and point you to MOS:LQ as a courtesy. While punctuation after quotes in certain cases may be jarring if you grew up with a different system, I think Misplaced Pages's convention makes much more sense (and I was taught differently myself). --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
As a contributing editor to the Rockstar Games article, I'm informing you that the article has been fully protected for edit warring. Please use the talk page to develop a consensus about the nationality of the company and if possible, use verifiable sources as support. If a consensus can be reached, please go to the protection request page and request for unprotection. In addition, please use the Twinkle editing tool appropriately. Instances such as these are not considered vandalism. There is not a consensus on the talk page and these edits appear to be edit warring amongst the IPs. Please note that misuse of the editing tools or engaging in edit warring may result in a block. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Icestorm815 • Talk19:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey thanks for the heads up. I was referring as vandalism/disruptive editing because the said IP user had already checked the talk page before (He commented on the discussion before editing it) and he was making, I think you would agree, a substantial encyclopaedic change, without discussion and against an already established compromise. MisterShiney✉20:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you please undo your AIV report against the IP regarding his "Top Critics" contributions? I'll ask him to hold off on edits until we've gone through the WT:FILM discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Since you are involved. Ill revert it. I was just a bit concerned that he was making these changes without a consensus and wanted an admin to take a look, especially given his edit history seemed to not represent a Neutral Point of view (having edited the essay on the topic). MisterShiney✉21:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Essays aren't policy, or even guidelines - they serve best as focuses of thought for consideration, and perhaps expression of preference. But I take your meaning, and the explanation for your revert. --Lexein (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
