Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) at 03:06, 31 March 2010 (→Yesterday Was a Lie). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

ANI

Please explain this. Where is this discussion duplicated, and why didn't you, if you feel it right to remove the discussion, not leave at least a link to where it's being held elsewhere? Woogee (talk)

It's a literal duplication of a conversation already ongoing on the same page above, here. Hipocrite copied it from where it was and pasted it to a new section at the bottom, while the discussion was still ongoing at the original place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I missed it because it was an indented discussion and not a top level one. Never mind.  :) Woogee (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Flatiron Building

hi there,

I have changed some images to improve on the article. The current lead image does not do the building justice. So you can keep that. About your other "white-space" claim, I don't see it. What browser are you using? Gryffindor (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

ps: There are too many images of the outside. At least one image of the inside should be included. If you have a proposal of how to build it in, go ahead. Gryffindor (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please hold on for a couple of minutes while I check something, then I'll be back to continue the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I just checked your last full version of the article using Firefox, Opera, Safari and Chrome, and indeed the only browser which has a problem with it is Internet Explorer, which happens to be what I'm using (IE8). Unfortunately, it happens also to be the most popular browser in the world (still), so its eccentricities have to be taken into account. The specific problem is that the movie image was placed below the "other uses" template, but "other uses" has to be the last item in that stack for IE to render it properly. Obviously, that's easily fixed, however I'm not convinced that this is the best place to put the movie - I think it's better where it is, next to "impact".

Concerning the infobox image, I'm not wedded to the one that's there, but the one you replaced it with is very similiar to the historic photo in the lower infobox. If you want to change it, I'd suggest looking for something that you think does the building justice, but isn't the same perspective as the other image. (I put the historic image in that infobox because it deals with the building as an historic thing.)

I have no disagreement about adding an image of the building's interior, but I think there's a better place to put it then in the gallery. I might be wrong about that, but let me give it a try, if you will. Thanks for coming over to discuss this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) OK, I've added the interior shot, to accompany to text which talks about the interior. I've also decreased the size of the movie to be equal to the interior image. I've got an idea for an image for the topinfobox, but I'll need a bit of time to crop the image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the top ibox image to an overhead shot, taken from the Empire State Building. It's very similar to a shot that used to be in the infobox (File:Flatiron 2006-06-17.jpg), which I took out because I was tired of seeing the scaffolding at the bottom years after it had disappeared.

Does this image do the building justice? If not, feel free to try another, just as long as it's not similar to the historic image in the lower infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the most famous shot of the image is from the street, where it looks like a sliver. And is it necessary to have all these exterior images? I would say keep the one of the construction phases, one from the side to show how it looks totally different from the back, and one close-up shot of the facade. No need for the rest really. And the video size is too big, it should be a simple thumb, just like the interior shot. Gryffindor (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotation box of HG Wells is also way too big, it is bumping into the building box on the right. Also there is no proof where the citation is from? Gryffindor (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I will reduce the box a bit -- it doesn't bump for me, but YMMV. I'll also look for a cite for it. The exterior shots are all justified, for one reason or another. I would object to their being removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks much better. Don't know about the last three exterior shots except the rear-view, is it really necessary to have that many in an article? Anyone who is interested on more exterior views of the building can follow up on the Commons link. Gryffindor (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the image gallery by rearranging them chronologically, meaning the oldest images go up. If you insist on exterior shots, then it's better to use some where you can actually see more of the facade. But the image sizes are all jumbled and it looks a mess, I have orientated myself towards the image gallery of Empire State Building, where images per rows are used. I hope that is ok with you. The layout seems to be fine, it is not clashing with my browser as far as I can tell. sincerely Gryffindor (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC) ps: Does H. G. Wells really write "Flat-iron Building" in his citation? Or is there a hypen too much? Gryffindor (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The larger sizes of the gallery images was a deliberate choice -- I just don't think tiny thumbs in a gallery have much impact, and with a larger article I would try to integrate as many gallery images as possible into the article itself. Obviously that's not possible here with such a short piece. In any case, I can live with things as they are now (although I do miss seeing the Steichen photo at a more viewable size), so if you're OK with it, too, I think we've reached a workable compromise. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, Wells -- yes, the hyphen is there, I copied the text over directly from the source. It's not unusual in 19th and early 20th century (and earlier) spelling to hyphenate many compound words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(out)Actually, I do have one more thing I'd like to try. I'm going to move the Steichen image out of the gallery, and reset the gallery as perrow=5, so it's a single line. See what you think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine too. It could bump into the NYC Landmark template box, although it doesn't do so on my screen, but that was why I had two rows arranged so no clash could happen. You really seem to like that Steichen image? I moved it down a notch where references are, otherwise it looks too crammed with the gallery above and out of place. Gryffindor (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Yeah, I do like the Steichen photo... I'm not quite sure why, but I find it quite evocative. (I also live around the corner from the building, so maybe that has something to do with it). Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice area. Ok, so I guess we can agree? cheers Gryffindor (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, we're good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:76.182.124.37

Man, I was feeling confused. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Shocked me, too! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Films Project

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for February has been published. March's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
• Want to see some great film article examples? Head on over to the spotlight department.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of the majority of film article in Misplaced Pages. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Collectonian

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily RS/N

I found your recent comments in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WORLD NET DAILY final answer needed to be both measured and thoughtful and have cited an excerpt in a comment I posted to the discussion today. This is to advise you of that use and to encourage you to contribute any further thoughts you might have in that regard. I believe some recent progress has been made in advancement towards a resolution of this RS/N issue which you may find to be of interest. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, however, the question of whether WND is a reliable source is not in need of "resolution", since it has been discussed ad nauseum and the result has always been the same: it is not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I respect your viewpoint, but the very existence of the RS/N discussion (commenced by an opponent of WND RS) appears to suggest otherwise. I believe that, at least, the beginnings of a consensus on the need to establish some substantive basis upon which to assert WND RS (or lack of) is developing and I would welcome your thoughts, if any, in that regard. I'll limit any further comments to the RS/N discussion and appreciate both your time and consideration. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You are violating the three-revert rule on User talk:67.180.84.52.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:67.180.84.52. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. 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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. - Zhang He (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are incorrect. I have made a number of edits to this IP's talk page, as I work my way thorugh their sometimes problematic edits, but each edit has been different. Each one is a different warning to the IP, who apparently deleted them without reading. Thus I have placed a deletion warning for List of hip hop albums , then a warning about refactoring other people's talk page comments , then a warning about using edit summaries , then a warning about deleting material from Lair of Grievous (The Clone Wars Episode) , and finally a warning about edit warring on that same article . So, I have not edit warred, because I have not reverted. I would appreciate it if you would retract your warning to me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Zhang He has not answered this response, either here on on his or her talk page, despite editing heavily after it was placed. In any case, the warning is without merit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. That editor is quick to take offense, but slow or unable to recognize/acknowledge his own offenses. _matic 02:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think I've ever come across them before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

An ANI report has been filed against you

Please see this. B-Wuuu (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Begone, thou varlot! Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hounding of 67.180.84.52

Please stop hounding my edits. You don't like my editing style - I get that, but your actions are reprehensible and counterproductive to the project. 67.180.84.52 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My concern has nothing whatsoever to do with your "style", since I've never seen you contribute anything in the way of content to know what your "editing style" is. What concerns me is your apparent lack of judgement about articles wichh are useful to the project and those which will probably not be. You seem to have a fairly knee jerk response to any short article, and you PROD, speedy and AfD far too often without making a good judgment about an article's potential value. You also appear to automatically revert anything anytime that other editors disagree with you, and your talk page contributions are mostly templates, and not attempts to discuss things. Also, you do not use edit summaries often enough to explan what you're doing and why.

I think you need to slow down a little, stop trying to rack up edits, and do a little more considered evaluation of the material you're looking at, and more discussing of your edits with other Wikipedians. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Could be a newbie, but seems to know a lot for a user that's only been online for 2 weeks. There was one previous edit on that IP, from 2 1/2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed both of those facts. So far, I'm unable to connect up this editor to anything else I'm aware of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, an' it's a duck, begorrah. But which duck? Be patient. He'll give himself away eventually. They always do (as far as we know). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

His block has been up for a while and there's been no editing - I'd wager that he's gone on to another IP address, and that this is his pattern, to edit on an IP address for a while, until someone catches on to the quality of his editing, and then switch. I only came across him accidentally, when he PRODed and AfD a young newbie's first attempt at an article (and a pretty good attempt, too), without regard for either the probable notability of the subject and the effect of squashing a new editor's baby steps on Misplaced Pages. That made me curious, and led me to look at his edits. Since he edits via patrolling recent changes or new articles, I'm unlikely to cross paths with him again, and he doesn't seem have particular subjects he edits on, where I might meet him.

Oh well, probably one just to keep in mind for the future, but it's a damn shame, considering what sub-vandalistic damage he can do to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and all a consequence of the "any moron can edit" principle. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside on Misplaced Pages's open editing policy

When the project was just starting up, and the encyclopedia basically didn't exist, the policy made some amount of sense, because the net effect of all the editing, the good stuff minus the bad stuff, was to build up something from nothing. But now, when there's a substantial edifice already in place, and improvement means not gross change but focused change: polishing, shaping, filling in the gaps, keeping current, etc., there's little reason to have such an open door policy for non-registered editors.

I have to believe that sooner or later the WMF is going to tumble to this, the question is: will they do so before someone figures out a way to duplicate what they've done and make money doing it. If they don't see the light and put their ideology aside in favor of practicality, then they're likely to be left in the dust by a commercial operation that provides better information through better quality control, since people (in general) don't give a shit if their information is "free" (in the Misplaced Pages sense) as long as it's free (in the real-world, money in your pocket sense). They'll change horses without hesitation -- remember when Google was just starting? I'm not sure that WMF realizes yet how precarious their situation is, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with sourcing BLPs or keeping their "fair use" exposure down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points. Their dilemma now is that if they change that core principle, they're admitting defeat. They are potentially painting themselves into a corner. And in the meantime, how many thousands of hours are wasted every year on contentiousness? Edit wars, over and over, for example focused on a single sentence in an article. Citizendium would like to replace wikipedia, I'm sure; but as I understand it, their approach is too restrictive, and you might as well seek your information from one of the standard encyclopedias that have editorial control. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Citizendium is the answer -- I think the power of money to be made will be the engine behind whatever comes up to supplant Misplaced Pages, if anything does. As for the administrative overhead, you are so correct. If you look at the stats on all Wikipedias in all languages, it's notable that English Misplaced Pages has an extremely low ratio of articles to total pages compared to others -- we're at something like 16%, while German is at 35%, French is at 25% and Polish is at 56%. We're by far the lowest of the largest 30 (Arabic is next at 19%), and that means that we have the biggest administrative overhead, since that's what those non-article paqes are. The comparison I always think of is the size of the support force needed to back-up front line troops in wartime. The fighting troops are always a relatively small percentage of the land forces overall, the logistical and supply troops vasty outnumber them - but there's an optimal ratio of support to fighting troops, and when an army falls substantial below or rises too high above that ratio, it's in trouble. I think that's the case here, there's much too much administrative overhead, and a lot of that is due to allowing open editing and to very lax rules about misbehavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384

I read your post on the ANI, and just wanted to thank you. You, of course, summed up in a nutshell the exact intentions of my edit. It gives me hope that perhaps all is not lost here on Misplaced Pages. It's hard to attempt to prove a point to those who can't even recognize sarcasm in its most extreme possibilities. Maybe I'll stick around for a while.Mk5384 (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is one that's endemic in a text-only mode of communication such as this, which is that people are so used to all the non-textual cues that come with ordinary intercourse (tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, gestures, etc.) to provide emotional context that some of them just aren't very good at "getting" what people are saying when it's all done with words, even when great care is taken in the writing. More often than not, it's one of the factors that leads pefecttly normal, reasonable people to engage in knock-down drag-out flamewars.

Anyway, glad I could help, and I hope your ongoing experience here is more pleasant than its been. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mae Questel

Ok im really annoyed you need to sort this out becuse everytime i correct the information someone comes along and undos it!

i know you just edited mae questels page, & you did a wonderful job. But mae questel did not play Betty Boop in paramount on Parade with bela lugosi

The person who Played Betty Boop in paramount on Parade was Bonnie poe! who also voiced Betty Boop, i think you are forgetting Betty Boop was voiced by 5 people.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123105/ also for once imdb have got the information correct. and that isnt wrong. so please dont mess the page up becuse i check regulary, and i will undo it. becuse that is false information. if you want me to add the actual refrence which states Bonnie poe did the role i can. as a reference to say whoever added that was Wrong!

all the books who mention that it is mae questel are wrong, also richard fleischer thought it was helen kane so what do you think? Read imdbs Credits please. before you mess becuse im just gonna undo the information if anyone messes with the correct list, becuse im adding correct information.

also to mention half of mae questels Betty Boop Filmography is incorrect, everyone knows margie hines did the role of Dizzy dishes. and a few on that list are done by Little ann little. only half are correct.

im not shouting or anything im just stating hald of the information is incorrect and people need to stop coming along and undoing proper minor edits.

also i might not reply to your reply. but i hope you know that bonnie poe played betty boop in hollywood on parade.

in musical justice (1931) that is when Mae Questel Played Betty Boop and according to a transcript Margie hines was suppost to have had the part of betty boop but it seems mae questel had got the role instead. For musical justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missymay02 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I was suspicious of the Betty Boop/Bela Lugosi info, but it was sourced by Allmovie.com, which is generally reliable. I'll remove it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you already have taken it out. I initially reverted your re-addition of Questel playing Betty Boop in Musical Justice, but the Allmovie filmography supports it, so I put it back in, with a ref.

In the future, when you add material to Misplaced Pages articles, please try to avoid informality such as using an ampersand (&) instead of the word "and" -- it's more like an encyclopedia then, and less like a personal essay. Also, if you want to link to another article on Misplaced Pages, instead of attaching the URL like other external links, just enclose the word or name with square brackets: ].

if you have other concerns about the article, what about we try to work them out together? Feel free to contact me, and we can talk, so that we don't work at cross-purposes. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

One other thing, we have something on Misplaced Pages called "assuming good faith", and that means that when you come across an edit you think is wrong, or bad, or that you disagree with, unless the evidence is overwhelming that the editor put it in deliberately to hurt the encyclopedia or vandalize it, you should 'assume that it was put there in good faith. That means that it's considered impolite to accuse another editor of adding "bad information" in your edit summary, before you've even discussed it with them. In this case, the information I added came from a generally reliable source, so I added it with every intention of helping the article. Since you seem to know a lot about Mae Questel, I'm more than happy to bow to your contention that it's not true, but I have to say that it rankled a little bit to be accused of acting badly, when that was not the case. That's why I suggest that we work together in the future, and give each other due consideration as wanting the improve the article, and make the information in it the best it can be. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday Was a Lie

I did not revert anything to any previous state. I also did not move the Variety part your talking about. The article requires improvement (it's C-class) and there was a deletion nom a couple months ago here where they talk about how there's a lot of contradictions in the article, which it looks like you admitted to introducing because you were in some type of reversion war. The consensus looks like it was was to keep, but that 3rd parties should edit the article for accuracy and to remove the inaccuracies that you admitted you included. Please also note that phrases like 'but I'm not going to allow the article...' are a sign of ownership , which it seems you have some of for this particular article.. i think you need to step back. 208.88.120.86 (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to improve the article, please discuss 'any substantial change you wish to make on the talk page. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)