Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:58, 23 December 2009

Avatar release date

Please stop changing the release date to December the 16th. It's only being released in Belgium, Egypt and France on the 16th, the USA release date is the 18th, along with nearly every other major market.

Setting it to the 16th will confuse 95% of the people viewing this page, especially seeing as the popular new international trailer is advertising the 18th.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaur (talk • contribs) 09:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of confusion, Misplaced Pages is not promotional material for the film. It's a factual statement. The film is released on December 16 as verified by Fox's global release schedule in the accompanying reference. Betty Logan (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work listing multiple release dates - my first response to the above comment was made without paying attention.

Thank you. Gamaur (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's ok. If everyone can live with it in the current version then it is sorted. It is important to include the premiere date though. I added the Australian and New Zealand dates for completeion since they were involded in production. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to message

I haven't been editing snooker articles on here for a while so haven't been keeping up to date. The debate is old now but if you have any other queries let me know, as I see you have done a lot of work on snooker related articles. Samasnookerfan (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm definetly in favour of keeping the flags for individual countries, rather than all as 'British'. Samasnookerfan (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes so am I. The IBSF uses the flags of the home nations to represent players so I don't see why Misplaced Pages shouldn't either. It wouldn't make sense to have players representing Scotland and England represented by the Union Jack because that would lose the distinction that the governing body itself makes. It makes more sense for Misplaced Pages to adopt the usage of the game itself, but there is a lot of agenda pushing outside of the Snooker Project. Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Particularly as the marjority of players are from England, Scotland and Wales having individual flags makes a lot of sense. Samasnookerfan (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

List of vegetarians

I　have started a discussion at the help desk which started as a question as before. You may want to comment at Misplaced Pages:Help Desk#Featured Lists. Thanks. All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 10:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

EW warnings

What was the purpose of this? I had just warned the user and had thrown out his AN3 report against the other edit warrior; I don't see why he needed to be warned again (especially with a template warning). Helping mediate disputes is great, but I don't see how rubbing things in users' faces is really necessary... I hope you just hadn't noticed the other warning yet. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't feel the action you took was appropriate in this situation. Upon viewing the dispute it looks very much like one editor attempting to add something to an article without a consensus, and then telling teacher on the other editor. The editing policy for Misplaced Pages is that editing is done through consensus, and if you want to add information to an article, the onus is on you obtain a consensus. I feel that 'threatening' both editors for edit warring is slightly incongruous when it basically follows directly from another editor's breach of Misplaced Pages editing policy.Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ethelh has since been banned for using sockpuppets to subvert consensus. The other editor was perfectly within his right to revert her edits and shouldn't have received a warning for edit-warring. I do wish mods would study the situation a bit more before throwing around warnings like confetti. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, and your version of it

I noted your comment above that "editing is done through consensus, and if you want to add information to an article, the onus is on you obtain a consensus." That will be the day. No-one needs consensus to add information to an article (provided it is relevant, neutral and sourced). Can you better explain what you mean? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone and anyone needs a consensus to edit Misplaced Pages, because whether something is relevant and sourced is a viewpoint. If people disagree with what you are trying to add to an article on the grounds that it is not relevant or properly sourced then there is no consensus for adding the material. Betty Logan (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. Everyone and anyone does not need a consensus to edit Misplaced Pages, so please don't lecture editors with misinformation. As you mightn't have read Misplaced Pages:Be bold, here's an excerpt -- "Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts......". Got that? Add facts. No-one needs your permission or my permission to add facts. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing is done by consensus on Misplaced Pages. Yes anyone can edit, but ultimately only within consensus. I am sorry if you feel like I am lecturing you but you are clearly uninformed. I suggest you read up on editing policy: WP:CON. If you cannot agree on what is to be added then it doesn't get added since there is no consensus to include the information: "Consensus is one of a range of policies regarding how editors work with each other, and part of the fourth pillar of the Misplaced Pages code of conduct. Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural outcome of wiki-editing. Someone makes a change to a page, then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on article talk pages." If you can't agree about adding information then you make a request for independent advice, you don't keep adding disputed content and edit-warring. Betty Logan (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So you couldn't defend your position, but went off on a tangent to fudge the issue. We see that a lot when people are backed into a corner. Let me remind you of what you said to another editor, which I took issue with. You said ".....if you want to add information to an article, the onus is on you (to) obtain a consensus." That is hogwash. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That was in the context of one editor trying to add "challenged" material to an article so I warned him. If it is not challenged then the consensus is to retain the material. If it is challenged then there is no consensus to include the material. Either way, every single edit is subject to consensus. I hope this has helped clarify matters for you. Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

More hogwash. You told an editor he needed consensus before adding information to an article. That is anathema to the basic principles of Misplaced Pages, and it is noticeable you will not address that point. Tell you what, how about I watchlist your edits for a while and bring to your attention any other misinformation you might post? That could help clarify matters for you, and would be in the interests of Wiki too. OK? Incidentally, why did you make this unhelpful edit? You changed the link so that English went to the disambiguation page instead of English language it was intended to go to. You didn't give an edit summary, so you can clarify this matter as well. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Trans4mers was a vandal who vandalised every article he ever edited. He didn't have a consensus to do that so I had him banned. His edit made "English" link to the disambiguation page rather than the English langauge page and then a wikibot came along and relinked it to the English language page. So to revert the edits of Trans4mers I had to revert the actions of the bot. You will actually see my first revert was a mass revert but I noticed that removed pertinant information, so I had go through each edit individually to make sure the legitimate information that was added later was not removed. If you bothered to check my last edit you will see that the link you are whining about is back to its natural state. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} Just a belated 2 cents from a passerby: Kaiwhakahaere is 100% correct on this. ] is policy. WP:CONSENSUS is too, but the other (when used properly) trumps it (along with every other policy), and always has. The point you are missing, Betty, about consensus is right at the top of WP:CONSENSUS: "Editors typically reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing". This would be impossible if consensus were required in order to edit, obviously! You can't put the cart before the horse. See also WP:BRD. If you can demonstrate that someone like Trans4mers is in fact a consistent vandal, then deal with him/her/it/them in normal vandal-fighting ways, not by spreading disinformation about how WP is edited, please. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion you may be interested in

See here - I've started a new subsection about accusations of wikihounding (Ethelh calls it wikistalking) against you, I thought you should know about this. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have had a couple of altercations with Ethel in the past but both issues have been fully resolved as far as I am concerned. Ethel accuses every single editor she comes into conflict with as being me, so in actual fact she is accusing me of wiki-stalking and being a sockpuppet. In most of these cases it is obvious from the outset this is not the case because I have no common contribution history with the accused editors. Ethel often adds relevant information to the articles, but is very forceful with her contributions which can destabilise articles and is sometimes reluctant to provide sources. The last thing that discussion needs is me wading into it since it has become heated enough but I will keep an eye on it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as a point of note, Ethel has form for accusing people of wikistalking. I'm not the first, there is an editor called User:Sift&Winnow who she accuses here. She accuses four more editors as being me here. Betty Logan (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ethelh has been banned for using sockpuppets so hopefully this matter is closed. Betty Logan (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

why????

I don't see the problem SPLETTE :] 03:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

She didn't play Jill Mason in the play, only the film. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I missed that. Thx SPLETTE :] 03:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

BJCP links

I think Hu12 was out of order by blacklisting the links and there is a discussion about it at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Abuse_of_admin_privileges_by_User:Hu12 Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have given my view. And I have requested that the ban be lifted on the three articles that legitimately use BJCP links. Thanks for letting me know about the discussion. SilkTork * 20:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou :) You are far more eloquent than I am. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I had the same concerns when I saw the blacklisting. There are definitely some legitimate links that need to be whitelisted. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

A quick note of thanks for risking your nose commenting at Talk:Roman Polanski (it's been a semi-dangerous place to poke noses in since September 27 when Polanski was arrested). No particular reason to use the nose metaphor, rather than toes in the hot water, or elbows up ... etc :) ... Just in a nose mood tonight. lol Cheers. And Happy Thanksgiving (if that's a non-offensive holiday for you.) Proofreader77 (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Have a happy Thanksgiving ("offensive holidays"...that concept is new to me!!). I'll keep checking in on the Roman Polanski article. My only goal on that article is to keep it stable, so feel free to accept or reject any views I express there. Betty Logan (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(re "offensive holidays" ... I assume there is a subset of the fraternity/sisterhood of turkey lovers ... who find Thanksgiving problematic. You can never be too careful in WP. :) As for RP talk, let no one deflect you from expressing your views -- it can be an exhausting page, and testiness happens. I.E., rest assured you are welcome. Cheers (again). Proofreader77 (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Addition of non-controversial facts to an article on a living person without a source is not a violation of WP:BLP in need of reversion. At least two of Snooker-loopy98 (talk · contribs)'s recent snooker bio edits can be verified externally simply with simple Google searches (the sources are arguably not worth citation, though; at least I don't like to cite sources that "webby" unless the author is well known to be reliable). Not all of that editor's contributions are great, but they don't all deserve to be reverted, either. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC) PS: I've backed up your note at that user's talk page, and invited the user to join WP:SNOOKER where hopefully we can guide the editor a bit. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about not including a source, it's about removing information that I believe for the most part is incorrect. If someone adds a birth place without a source as they have done on many articles I will leave it if I do not know it is incorrect. However I removed edits that were made by an editor who I knew for a fact had made lots of inaccurate edits, and whose edits were reversed by editors on other articles i.e. I had no faith in this editor. Just because one or two of them might turn out to be correct is not justification for leaving lots of inaccurate facts in the articles. The only other option open to me was to just reverse the edits I knew were wrong but I was dissatisfied by that choice because I knew I would be leaving lots of incorrect edits in the articles. You either trust my judgement in regards to this editor or not. If not I'm perfectly prepared to go back through his edit history and reverse all my edits where I don't know if his edit was correct or not, which is clearly what you must ask me to do if you don't think I should have removed them in the first place. Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are some of his edits:

Ronnie Barker - Bedford changed to Biddenham . Britannica says Bedford:

Philip Williams (snooker player) - Swansea inserted . Global Snooker says Llanelli

Fred Davis (billiards player) - Birth place changed from Whittington Moor to Newbold . Briannica says Whittington Moor .

Robin Hull - Ranua, Finland insterted . Global Snooker says England .

Mike Dunn (snooker player) - Lincoln inserted . Global Snooker says Middlesbrough .

Marcus Campbell - Drylaw, Edinburgh inserted . Global Snooker says Dumbarton .

Darren Morgan - New Quay inserted and Armbrust has since corrected this to Newport and confirmed by Global Snooker .

Bjorn Haneveer - Ghent inserted , since corrected by Armbrust to Turnhout and confirmed at Global Snooker .

Alfred Burden - Marylebone inserted , Global Snooker says Paddington

That's just from his first day of editing, and just those I could confirm at Global Snooker. There are several others that are confirmed to be correct, and others that Global Snooker didn't record the information for which I suspect would break down into the same correct/incorrect ratio. Coupled with the reverts performed by other editors then clearly this editor cannot be trusted to make factually accurate edits.

Yeah, I jumped the gun on you. Sorry. I've looked into his edits more and more myself, and they are off-kilter. I'm not sure they are malicious, I think he/she/it is simply relying on personal belief/memory (apparently poor) and/or sources that are not reliable. I have seen the editor make legit, good edits, they just seem to be, eh... uncommon. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 18:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've given this some thought and I think you're right and I'm wrong. I was acting in the best interests of the articles at the time but I should have given the editor more consideration. In hindsight I think if you are going to completely remove someone's edits - even if there is strong justfication for it - you should at least discuss the matter with other editors first, and probably even an admin. It just seemed a simple solution at the time with him only having made a few dozen edits but I did step beyond my remit as an editor. I think the editor is misguided rather than a vandal. Including sources for birth places is overkill, but if he returns maybe we can get him to include his source url in the edit summary so at least we can quickly check the info. If it starts up again I will only revert the stuff I definitely know is wrong and bring the matter to you - at least that way any decisions will get a second opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris Small

To be honest, I have no idea, what was wrong with my edit in this article. I removed a section, that was in my eyes ridiculous. Who could be interested in this kind of information? "He has two daughters that i know, one called danielle and the other natalie, both them are absolutely stunning." In the german Misplaced Pages such nonsense would be deleted. So did I in the english Article of Chris Small. --Kryston (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I reversed the wrong edit. You are absolutely correct, it shouldn't be in teh article. Betty Logan (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Weirdly enough, I did the same thing! Snooker-loop98's the one who put the wisecrack in that article. I've left him a level 3 warning. While some of his edits were okay (if needing sources) he's already triggered some other warnings this month. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 18:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

edit summaries

Hi- I'm going through requests at WP:RFPP right now, and one thing that stuck out when I looked over the page history of Avatar is that you aren't using edit summaries. When reverting vandalism or unsourced changes or the like, please use the edit summaries. If nothing else, it makes it easier to pick out the "good" versus "bad" edits. Thanks, tedder (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that. Usually it's just to restore sourced information that has been removed rather than actually changing information - if you check List of most expensive films where I've made alterations rather than restorations you will see I do explain my edits. I will offer full explanations for all my edits on the article if it makes it easier, especially since it is volatile. Betty Logan (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

2012 release dates

Betty you are absolutely right about that. The "International" messed me up. I deeply apologize if I disrupted the article in any way. --Mike Allen  20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine Mike. Sorry about losing your gross update too, but it's ok now. It's not your fault since the "first" release should be clearly identified but someone had changed it to "international" in the meantime, so it wasn't labelled correctly. I changed it back to "premiere" to make it clear. Betty Logan (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I did have the cast bolded (like actor as character) since WP:FILMS does support that when you have descriptions next to them -- to make it easier to read. Did you remove that or someone else? --Mike Allen  21:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made any alterations to the cast. I've just checked it didn't get caught up in the revert, but this is the extent of the changes between your edit and mine: . It's probably an anon IP, they play havoc with changing the format, removing references etc. Betty Logan (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know, don't get me started on anon IPs. :-\ --Mike Allen  22:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For your continually constructive work on the Avatar article. It is my view that the both of us deserve a free ticket to the premiere. Regards Gamaur (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, in the end I had it semi-protected, the amount of rubbish going into the article was ridiculous. Betty Logan (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

At least one case of vandalism came from a close friend of mine who noticed my involvement and found it amusing. I missed it but it was something to do with a possum. Gamaur (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar

Hey, im sorry about my edit to Avatar i thought that the film opended worldwide on the 18th and that the date the article stated was a mistake. Once again, im sorry and it will not happen again.Cheddarjack (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If it was a genuine mistake that is ok. But please do check the reference if you are going to alter something. Betty Logan (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you came and talked to me, I just submitted an edit on there regarding the lead. The release dates on the infobox are generally okay, before, it was not neat. Regarding the release date and the year in the lead. Typically, movies on wikipedia have the release date in the lead. I know that this movies release date is contriversial, however, stating the origional release date, priemere date, the UK date, and the USA date is what films tend to do (I am talking about Harry Potter movies, Twilight Movies, The Dark Knight). Personally, when reading the guidelines, there isn't anything that says "DO NOT PUT RELEASE DATE IN LEAD", it only says the year is required. So many films see adding the release date to the lead as "summerizing" the film, a way of adding more information. If we keep it as uncontriversail as we can in the lead, I do not see how not adding the release date could hurt. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I personally don't have a problem with including release dates in the lede, as long as all notable dates are included. We can't select the date that just applies to our country becasue that would violate NPOV. My suggestion was based on the fact that if we took it out then it wouldn't be an issue. If we agree on the dates to be included then that's fine. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion on Talk:Avatar (2009 film) so others can see and weigh in. I asked at WT:FILM for additional opinions and am letting the "American-British film" label stay until others weigh in. Erik (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The talk page of WikiProject Films is for notifying others of discussions going on elsewhere. Please do not continue the discussion in a different place from where it first originated. I will respond to your concerns at the film article's talk page. Erik (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove my comments from Project Talk Pages. Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

When there is an ongoing discussion at the article talk page, it is perfectly appropriate for Project managers to move the post to that page. Please stop edit warring over a post to a talk page. If Erik had not done so, other managers would have moved it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I daresay other Project managers would only have done so if his comment had been limited to just a discussion notification rather than furthering the discussion. What he did was express an opinion and make a point which I was perfectly entitled to respond to. I'm perfectly entitled to restore my reply to a non-neutral comment on a talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I simplified the notification. Erik (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

When you post a question or comment to a Project talk page, you are in essence soliciting opinion based on style guidelines and policy. Every post is an opinion. Because you didn't agree with the response (which was to move the discussion to the article talk page), doesn't give you license to edit war. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't object to him moving my comments, I objected to him expressing an opinion on the subject at hand, and then removing my comments but leaving his up. His comments were far more than just a 'notification'. He made a point that I responded to. He then DELETED my response and left his comments up. Betty Logan (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's move on, please. I moved your comment to the film article's talk page and responded to it there. I also edited my notification at WT:FILM to be more straightforward. Let's get back to the topic at hand. Erik (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that Erik. The reason I didn't restore my comments at the WT:FILM was because you altered your comments and 'removed' the opinion. I agree the discussion should take place in one place, but felt your original comments furthered the discussion. The only problem I have had with your conduct has been resolved through your own actions, so no hard feelings here. Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

See reply

at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#semi-protect_due_to_fan_cruft?. Thanks. 67.101.6.234 (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Betty Logan (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)