| Revision as of 08:43, 4 July 2012 editFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits →User:RJR3333 at the To Catch a Predator article: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:23, 4 July 2012 edit undoZadignose (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,303 edits →User:RJR3333 at the To Catch a Predator articleNext edit → | ||
| Line 174: | Line 174: | ||
| He's violated ] again. See about it on the talk page. Because of his failure to defer to WP:CONSENSUS, his inability to stick to compromises with respect to WP:CONSENSUS, and his repeated ] tendencies, I will be reporting him if that edit is not reverted. This is ridiculous. Thank you for stepping in, but the editor is beyond help. If it comes down to me reporting him, your weighing in on the case against him, with regard to this particular topic, would be most appreciated. ] (]) 08:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | He's violated ] again. See about it on the talk page. Because of his failure to defer to WP:CONSENSUS, his inability to stick to compromises with respect to WP:CONSENSUS, and his repeated ] tendencies, I will be reporting him if that edit is not reverted. This is ridiculous. Thank you for stepping in, but the editor is beyond help. If it comes down to me reporting him, your weighing in on the case against him, with regard to this particular topic, would be most appreciated. ] (]) 08:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *Yeah, it looks like he's not likely to relent.] (]) 09:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:23, 4 July 2012
Nice job merging the articles! With a little Wikifying, the new article will be much improved! Kafziel 17:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the encouragement! zadignose 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Belated welcome
By the way, since nobody has officially welcomed you yet, I figured I'd give you a few links you might find helpful. You obviously have the sandbox thing down, and a good bit of the syntax, too. But these are good to keep for reference, especially if and when you start branching out into other areas.
- User tutorial
- Help desk
- Discussion boards
- Guidelines for properly writing and formatting articles
- Policy on maintaining a neutral point of view
- Policy for content when editing articles and creating new ones
- Notability guidelines for people
- Tips for settling disputes
- Links to deletion debates
- Featured article criteria
A lot of them are pretty dry, but they may come in handy at some point. There's a lot more to Misplaced Pages than just the articles everybody sees, which you will find if you stick around long enough. And again, if you ever have a question or need help with anything, don't hesitate to contact me. Kafziel 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to WP Films
Hi Zadignose, I saw your comment in WP Films. I answer here, because we have tried to deal with the problem several times but no important step could be taken. There are some minor discussions in archives 2 & 3, but the first important effort to address it is here*. Then we had this problem here* (also see 3 sections above it). You may also want to see the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Films/List of films without article, where I try to give some notability criteria, although the by country lists are a potentially serious problem. It isn't easy to limit a contributor who thinks that every film with some (subjectively evaluated) notability factor should become part of Misplaced Pages and who has the enthusiasm to work hard for it. I will be glad if you come up with a good idea, after you take a look. You are welcome to check my collection of general and Films-specific informative links. I hope they can be of help. Cheers! Hoverfish Talk 15:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links, Hoverfish. I'll try to read through as much as I can, to get caught up on this discussion. Meanwhile, I've opened up a discussion at the Village Pump ], to see if more opinions will flow. I reckon I've been a bit contentious, but I guess that's how it goes.zadignose 15:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen any trace of contentiousness in what you wrote. Some things do need to be discussed. By the way, the "Importance" rating has more to do with the Editorial Team for the distributable Misplaced Pages Version 1.0 than anything else we could benefit from in Films. I do try to rate some few films as Top, if they are considered masterpieces, or High, if they are important films of an important director, but anything under these ratings is still obscure and undefinable. Maybe "Low" could have also a good use, but I haven't attempted to use it yet. The opinion I find usually is that Importance is mostly POV. Hoverfish Talk 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Ocean's Thirteen
I'm curious what your opinion is on other articles related to scheduled events. Should nothing that is planned to take place in the future ever be listed? Nothing is 100% certain. This is why I feel it's necessary to take things on a case by case basis; the reliability of only the sources of the article in question should be examined, not every source for every scheduled event in the encyclopedia. I think your concern is more with the notability requirements for movies, and I believe that it would be more productive to discuss the guidelines (and possibly changing them) rather than simply nominating them for deletion without prior discussion. It's one thing to promote discussion, it's another to thrust it upon a notable subject when the argument is about non-notable ones. Leebo 05:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- But I maintain that I did not thrust the discussion upon a notable subject, as I consider Ocean's Thirteen not-notable. I am also attempting to engage the community in a discussion of notability standards for films at the Village Pump an in the Notability guide for Film. I'm starting to think it's a lost cause. I'm glad that you've shown an interest in discussing it with an open mind, and thank you for the consideration.
- I'm not sure whether I can generalize to articles outside the field of film, but I believe that generally all articles about films not yet released should be considered not-notable. That's because we're not really talking about an "event," we're talking about a work of art, or if you prefer a work of entertainment, which is the subject of an article penned before the work's creation. Such a work can not be deemed notable prior to completion and being viewed by critics and the public. And it's certain that a prematurely scribed article will be based largely on rumor, speculation, and hype which makes it extremely questionable as a quality encyclopedic article.
- Also, I think that many people have a distorted notion about the nature of the film business. Many films fail, the inability to complete or release a film is not so unusual an event, and most films that fail do so not as a loud "bomb," but as an inaudible fizzle. The public quickly forgets what was being so vocally hyped a few months before. We certainly can't presume that a film will be "notable," whether it succeeds or fails, before the fact. Again, at the risk of being redundant, most failures are not notable.
- I might also be skeptical about other "future" articles outside the medium of film, but I think I'm more able to make a reasonable judgment regarding film articles at this point. My ideas seem incompatible with the larger Misplaced Pages community, but I feel someone needs to speak up about the apparent lack of notability standards.
- I think one of the concerns that some editors had (including me) is that there was very little discussion concerning the sources of the Ocean's Thirteen article specifically. There was mention of your opinion that all sources for unreleased movies should be considered as unreliable (I'm guessing regardless of the quality of their other coverage?), but not the way that the sources of the article up for deletion were unreliable in particular. Just as you have to cite your sources in an article to prove its verifiability, you need to cite them and explain why they shouldn't be used to prove its non-noteworthiness. But, I believe you are going to have a difficult time discrediting sources that are considered reliable fact-checking third parties. I don't think it's enough to say, "Well, they're reliable when they talk about other stuff, just not movies." Leebo 12:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, there would have been plenty of time to discuss the specifics of The Ocean's Thirteen article and its sources, had the "discussion" not been terminated prematurely. Rather than allowing a discussion of these relevant points, the nomination was abruptly dismissed. There's no way to give a full discussion of the points relevant to a deletion in just the first paragraph introducing the nomination, and it's not possible to preemptively answer all possible objections. Unfortunately, the necessary dialogue was not permitted to occur.zadignose 12:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think one of the concerns that some editors had (including me) is that there was very little discussion concerning the sources of the Ocean's Thirteen article specifically. There was mention of your opinion that all sources for unreleased movies should be considered as unreliable (I'm guessing regardless of the quality of their other coverage?), but not the way that the sources of the article up for deletion were unreliable in particular. Just as you have to cite your sources in an article to prove its verifiability, you need to cite them and explain why they shouldn't be used to prove its non-noteworthiness. But, I believe you are going to have a difficult time discrediting sources that are considered reliable fact-checking third parties. I don't think it's enough to say, "Well, they're reliable when they talk about other stuff, just not movies." Leebo 12:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Cobra verde still 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cobra verde still 1.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:Films Newsletter
The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 06:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Rejs
Thanks for adding the infobox about this film. However, I see you have made a cut and paste move from The Cruise (film) to Rejs. This is not allowed, please take a look at WP:MOVE about how to move pages properly. It takes an admin help to fix this but somebody will come along, I suspect. It is a brilliant film by the way. Stefán 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Notability (films) nominated for deletion
Misplaced Pages:Notability (films) nominated for deletion
This is a courtesy notice: Misplaced Pages:Notability (films) has been nominated for deletion. --Kevin Murray 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Films February Newsletter
The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
March WP:FILMS Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by Cbrown1023 talk 01:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Re your fundamental question
at Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Role of truth#Back To Basics: A Fundamental Question. Excellent question! And I agree with a lot of your other comments, too! --Coppertwig 23:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Fairmont, New Orleans
Hi. In The Fairmont Hotel New Orleans article I notice you removed the sentence "The Fairmont New Orleans has been close since Katrina due to extensive damage." with the explanation "unattributed". I reverted that change for the following reasons: 1) It is attributed to exactly the same degree as everything else in the article (in this case, not at all, alas) and 2) Living in New Orleans, I can vouch that the Fairmont is still closed, as can anyone who drives or walks past it. (I suspect a web search will probably confirm such info). The Fairmont New Orleans article is at present a sad little stub, one I'd like to expand on myself sometime, but I have a dauntingly large list of such articles at present. Anyway, I'd like to suggest that if there is a particular statement in an article you wish to take issue with and request citiation (not obvious vandalism, of course), please add Template:Fact or a related template listed on that page rather than removing the material. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 00:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, that's understandable. The reason why I removed the comment is that it was posted by a user who has repeatedly vandalized articles with strange comments, as well as adding a few reverted comments to Fairmont Hotel pages, so I didn't trust the unattributed comment here, though it couldn't clearly be identified as vandalism. Under other circumstances, I'd have used the citation template as you suggested.zadignose 13:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Nomination for working group
I nominated you at Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Community discussion to be part of a working group to develop a compromise solution for the WP:ATT page. --Coppertwig 23:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. The process seems murky and complex, but I'll give it a go and see if I can contribute anything useful/significant. zadignose 23:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Proposed move of English Defense
With regards to your comments at talk:English Defense about how you opposed the survey on the talk page, hash marks to enumerate comments, or grouping by support/opposition; please note that this is the procedure required to be followed as per WP:Requested moves, and the layout as seen is generated automatically by the addition of the {{RMtalk}} template (see step 3 of the page move nomination procedure). The best place to discuss changes would be at ].
For what it's worth, the template has been edited recently so bullet points are used instead of hash marks, and all discussions are already kept in a single section. So it looks like the template is now laid out as you'd prefer it. Regards, --DeLarge 11:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. It seems I did take up the discussion of these points in the wrong place, though I would briefly point out that the few Requested moves I've been involved in did not use this template, and the use of the template is not actually required for Requested moves. Rather, the page instructs users to create a place for discussion that can take "any form that is reasonable..." and then it states: "If a formal poll would help clarify whether consensus exists for the move, you can use the following template." But the formatting of the page, and the prominence of the template, really make it seem that this is standard expected procedure. Anyway, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. zadignose 12:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
List mediation
Welcome to the mediation group. I hope it won't actually be doing much anything shortly, but am more than happy to see you include yourself. John Carter 18:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hello Zagdignose. The proposed deadline for the tiebreaker poll is quickly approaching. It looks like the option you did not vote for will retain its lead. If that becomes the case, I wonder if you would express your acceptance of that outcome, even though it was not your preferred option, as did T. Anthony and Drumpler. I ask this in the interest of creating the strongest possbile consensus, so that the issue can be settled, and we can move on. Nick Graves 20:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly don't intend to edit against consensus, and I won't stir the pot with a lot of contentious posts right after our latest heated debates. After some time passes, and we've seen how the list shapes up, I think it would be reasonable to further discuss some points regarding the organization/format on the talk page. But I certainly can move on, in the sense that I won't cry foul or dispute issues that are beyond dispute. Is that close enough to what you were looking for? zadignose 00:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Thank you. Nick Graves 01:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom
I have submitted a report on User:Bus stop on the ArbCom page here. As an individual who was involved in this debate, your participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Drumpler 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The June 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams2020 09:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Your contribution would be much appreciated
Zadignose, I like what you wrote in the discussion of Talk:Evolution (philosophy). I thought it was reasonable and had a calming effect on the discussion. I hope you will consider taking a look at a virtually identical debate with some of the same Users at Talk:Involution (philosophy). Cott12 00:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 20:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The August 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 14:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Films roll call
An automatic notification by BrownBot 01:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Ossie Davis
Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the discussion on the Ossie Davis Talk Page? Thanks. Nightscream 16:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter
The September 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 00:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of TheVOid
A tag has been placed on TheVOid requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Merenta 19:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Berlin symphony1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Berlin symphony1.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --10:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
TUSC token 53380064319b3bd3cd77e8929d154c5f
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
File:Cobra verde still 1.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cobra verde still 1.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
You were there, way back when...
Based upon recent discussions in several places, I have begun work on an essay that seeks to clarify just how and when discussion of a film-before-it's-been-filmed might per WP:FUTURE merit inclusion in some manner, or per WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT might even merit a seperate article. A comment a recent AFD got me thinking of WP:EVENT would apply to a film's eary production in relation to WP:FUTURE and WP:GNG, and the question "Has the production of the film generated multiple, non-trivial news stories? In other words: Does the film already satisfy the primary criterion?" This inspired my essay and its attempt to perhaps address an ambiguity from WP:NFF in the same manner as was considered when WP:NF was first being created. As you were among the principle architects of WP:NF, please consider looking over User:MichaelQSchmidt/Future Films and offering your insights. Thanks, Schmidt, 01:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
A related discussion
Please see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film/Future films#Proposed ammendment to section on Process#Notability Your comments toward my attempt at clarity are quite welcome. Schmidt, 23:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
User:RJR3333 at the To Catch a Predator article
He's violated WP:CONSENSUS again. See my comment about it on the talk page. Because of his failure to defer to WP:CONSENSUS, his inability to stick to compromises with respect to WP:CONSENSUS, and his repeated WP:DEADHORSE tendencies, I will be reporting him if that edit is not reverted. This is ridiculous. Thank you for stepping in, but the editor is beyond help. If it comes down to me reporting him, your weighing in on the case against him, with regard to this particular topic, would be most appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks like he's not likely to relent.zadignose (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)