Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:44, 15 June 2009

Archives

Archive 1 - 2006 Archive 2 - 2007-2008

Thanks

I know you just gave me a warning, but thanks for being fair about it and warning the other guy too. It's nice to see that once in a while and I appreciate it. Erikeltic (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, could you provide the diffs as to where I violated 3RR? I just checked (its a rare day indeed when I go over 3 edits, and I haven't in over a year). Could you provide those diffs? If you find yourself mistaken, I would appreciate you reverting back your warning. - Arcayne () 02:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund

The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. Esasus (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

James Cawley anon vendetta

He's been reported, as indicated by the link in the section immediately before you posted, I think. - Arcayne () 05:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sci Fi Weekly

The info about Sci Fi Weekly in the Sci Fi Channel entry is completely wrong. Suggest it either be omitted or corrected. It was never a print publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redlectroid (talk • contribs) 00:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars sequel trilogy

Dalejenkins | 21:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Liopleurodon

Yeah, I am going to seek intervention from an administrator. ArthurWeasley (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of edit at List of motion picture production companies

Could you please explain your action here? → http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_motion_picture_production_companies&diff=288876231&oldid=288860507 . Also, did you clean up after your action by deleting the redirect that I described in the comment appended to the line item addition? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's very simple - it was a non-notable film company that couldn't sustain its own article, so it had no place on that page. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Liopleurodon

Hi, Mike,

As I've said on the liopleurodon talkpage, I'm leaving WP. Before I do, I'd like to give some feedback. Your comments and edit summaries gave off an antagonistic tone towards me for quite a lot of the discussion. Being antagonistic is unhelpful to WP for a number of reasons, most of which are outlined at WP:CIVIL. I assume you didn't mean to be antogonistic - if this is the case, please be more careful with what you say to editors in the future.

Darimoma (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe stop hounding my edits

'Coz that won't end well for you. - Arcayne () 15:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

But, if you have the burning need to contravert my edits, its going to be in your best interest to take the time to discuss them in article talk. - Arcayne () 15:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"'Coz that won't end well for you." - so what, are you threatening me? Nice... MikeWazowski (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am explaining to you that following my edits around and reverting them simply because they are mine is called wiki-hounding, and folk at AN/I tend to take a rather dim view of that practice. And you might want to read up on WP:CIVIL yourself; you aren't being very polite or courteous. If I choose to point out that you are behaving poorly, that isn't being uncivil. I am offering you the opportunity to use the discussion page as intended, instead of thinking that simply reverting in synthesized information is going to somehow magically change the nature of the edits, or my reaction to them.

I appreciate that you think you are pointing to the obvious, but what is obvious to you isn't the same thing as citation. That bears repeating, Mike: your interpretations or evaluations are not citable in Misplaced Pages articles. I've made this point in article discussion, but I think things are heating up to the point that you are missing the core of the arguments, instead turning the discussion into a pissing match. I think you are wrong to do so, and its not going to have the desired result for you. I want to work with you, but refusing to discuss and being - for lack of a better word, a jerk - isn't going to solve anything. - Arcayne () 05:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think people are wiki-hounding you, I can't help you understand your delusion. Because that's what it is. As to the point at hand, if by "not being polite" you mean rolling over at taking whatever you say at face value, and always letting you have your way (which is what appears to be the way you wish things would go), then fine - but that's NOT how this has played out, and you know it. Please keep your insults and name-calling to yourself, and stop projecting your own problems on other editors. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI

There currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that mentions your name. See this section. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

AN3

See WP:AN3#MikeWazowski reported by Dlabtot (Result: ). You and the IP both seem to have four reverts. If you reply at WP:AN3 and promise to stop edit warring on Raiders of the Lost Ark, that may be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You Recent "Lawrence" Edit

Hi MikeW. -

I'm just curious about why you regarded the posted link to a restoration article on Lawrence of Arabia as WP:LINKSPAM. I looked in on the article and it appeared like a legitimate discussion by one of the restorers. It's not at all critical to the success of the article, but if you've got a moment some time I'd be interested in hearing your thinking on it. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply and explanation on Morgands - I thought it might be something like that. regards.Sensei48 (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

About editin the page for king kong film

I was still editing the page for King Kong, when I was just going to add the citation, you deleted my changes. In the next several edits, and there are some Chinese citations, sorry, no relative English citations since it is region three release, not region one. You can verify the sources using google translate, but just do not delete and say this is unsourced just because it is hard to read. Of course there would be no problem if you know Chinese.--203.83.115.131 (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to remove the reference and text again, but someone else beat me to it - you should really read up on the guidelines for reliable sources - posts on a message board won't cut it, nor will some of your language, such as the use of the word "fraud" - that reeks of personal opinion, not objective coverage. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Jason Steed

Re: Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles , as you did with Fledgling Jason Steed. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove just the AFD notice, I removed the whole article and returned the page to a redirect. (Which I thought was what you lot wanted). I am happy for you to speedy close AFD if you want. Now that the publishing deal has been announced by Publishers MarketPlace it is likely that the book will be mentioned in more 'Misplaced Pages reliable' publications over the next few days/weeks. Then, perhaps, I can recreate the article without causing any problems.--Beehold (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Padmé (film) edits and flagging

Hello, I'm confused and concerned by your repeated citations that the images I have added to ths entry comprise "excessive self-promotion" and a "conflict of interest." Before my last round of changes, I read up on both areas and took measures to neutralize the point of view by removing the personal names of the people appearing in the photos and limiting the captions to refer only to the characters as they appear in the film. Yet I return to see that you have removed all of the photos again (captions and images in their entirety) and have gone on to flag the article. I would appreciate it if you would explain to me what the ongoing issue is. If it is the captions, they were already addressed. If it is the use of the pictures themselves (images from the on set and the film itself), then my confusion remains, because the "Improving this article" window on the talk page appears to actively encourage the addition of images. ("This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster.") I am close with the subject of the article, but fail to see how the images constitute COI. They relate directly to the subject of the article, don't link to anything other than the images themselves, don't mention or link to any person, and offer no editorial comment or slant on the film. They also do nothing to promote me personally. I don't appear in any of them and am not mentioned in any of them. I'm posting this because in flagging the article, it seems you are trying to escalate the situation into some kind of confrontation.Spazweez (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)spazweez

"I am close with the subject of the article, but fail to see how the images constitute COI." - The images aren't the COI, it's your closeness to the subject. According to the image desriptions, you're either the director or producer of the film - you shouldn't be editing the article, except for minor or factual corrections. Overloading the article with unnecessary images sets off all kinds of warning flags. Also, I only finally flagged the article since both you and Westcoastbrainaic appeared to only be blindly reverting, and never addressing the subject I mentioned in my edit summaries. The article already has an image - the poster. For a subject this small, that's enough - it's certainly the standard, as shown in nearly all the other articles on short films. Also, this comment of yours ("offer no editorial comment or slant on the film") is exactly why the images are unnecessary - they're just decoration. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I still don't entirely understand how the images as decoration makes them unnecessary, as it seems that same complaint could be applied to many other pop culture related articles on wikipedia. However, the point about number of images related to the size of the article and particular subject is taken, so I have refrained from re-introducing them and concentrated instead on trying to clean up the article per the other standards put forward by the film project wiki group. I am one of the producers of the project, but have only introduced facts into the article and I believe that the film itself, as the winner of an annual competition that is closely connected to a major cultural touchstone, is as valid an article subject any of the other fan films which have an individual Misplaced Pages entry (cf. "Star Wars fan films"). That being said, I am going to refrain from further editing of the article except to fix any factual errors, since I seem to have stepped into a hot button topic. Thanks for your explanation. Spazweez (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)spazweez

Thanks

I wasn't entirely sure on whose side of the discussion you were at the time. Jerkov (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem - certain editors have a problem being called on their actions, as you saw. Or not, now that he's decided that even *discussing* his actions (all true accounts, btw) are "personal attacks". Whatever. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, reading bits of his discussion log has confirmed what I already thought from the T2 and T-1000 discussions. He tends to claim ownership over some articles it seems, and uses his vast knowledge of Misplaced Pages's policies (not to mention clever, thorough rhetoric) to hide this and confuse dissenters into submission. He's also an expert at picking apart fallacious arguments from other contributors and using these to make them seem unreasonable- a very clever and subtle victim act put to perfection. If he reads this he'll probably try to do exactly that. We're dealing with a very clever guy here. He also has a habit of inventing his own policies, for instance his claim that when a film is set only a few years from the present it's "indistinguishable from the present" so it doesn't warrant mentioning. Or his insistence that something must be of "intrinsic importance to the understanding of a subject". That isn't a Misplaced Pages policy or rule, it's something he made up and is going to defend to death with the tactics outlined above. Jerkov (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Steed

Please stop wiki-stalking me. The refs were accepted by the people at Misplaced Pages DYK (Did You Know) when it was used on the front page of Misplaced Pages recently and I trust their judgement. The author has helped pay for the memorial with proceeds from his book, and, as well as ensuring that the name of Raymond Steed lives on in the modern world through his book, he continues to support the project financially. I will be putting the refs back.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 13:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Wiki-stalking? This has nothing to do with *you*, so please don't try to change the argument. I haven't seen *any* reliable references for this book, this author, or his financial support. You have a serious problem with reliable sources, so if you simply blindly revert to re-insert this with the same poor references, it will be removed. I don't care what DYK posted - they apparently didn't look closely enough. That's ont notability, nor is it the final arbiter of what's acceptable on Misplaced Pages. You're going to need to come up with a MUCH better reason and/or references. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "You have a serious problem with reliable sources"...now that's a bit WP uncivil isn't it? How many Good Articles, DYKs and Featured Articles have you got to your name?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 14:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hardly uncivil, when you just had an article deleted for a major lack of reliable sources. It's a simple fact - backed up by the poor references you're using in what appears to be an effort to ram any mention of the book into articles. Don't make this personal, or who's better than the other. That's not the issue. Also, FYI, you're going into 3RR territory if you revert this in again. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not my article mate. (But the answer is already on your talk page)-- Myosotis Scorpioides 14:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, since I don't have access to the original page history, and you've created the redirect twice now, according to your comments at AfD (which led me to the article, so that blows your wiki-stalking charge), forgive me for assuming you have an interest in connecting the two. However, my original point remains - the references for adding that author are not up to WP:RS standards. Find better sources, and we'll talk. Otherwise, it needs to stay out. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)