Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:20, 9 December 2012

List of Jericho episodes

Hey there. As you've probably noticed, I have been rewriting List of Jericho episodes little by little. I remembered you from this discussion. I was wondering, since you seemed to have that page watchlisted, if you would be interested in helping out before the FLC. I'm kinda blabbing on to that article right now; I really need someone to copy edit my work. Do you think that you could possibly help with that? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done that a bit already, as you may have noticed. I'll read through the rest and tidy them up. (I can't work out how "talkback" works, it seems to send a message to me, not you. I guess you'll find this anyway.) Barsoomian (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You're meant to place "talkback" on my page, to alert me that I've responded. :) I did indeed notice your edits on several episodes; I appreciated them a lot. Anything you could do would be great. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Widows and orphans

Hey, thanks for adding those references at Widows and orphans. And my respects to a professional typesetter. :-) Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from List of Primeval episodes. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion...

I am in agreement with your opinion, and have opined a "keep" myself... however... you really should put a strikethrough accross your second "keep" at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_creatures_in_Primeval_(2nd_nomination)&diff=next&oldid=336147684 and definitely leave the comment. I realize it was done fore emphasis... and its not because a closer cannot count... but its just that the rule is "one keep to a customer"... and if folks see two they might get the wrong impression. Schmidt, 09:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Please do not add unreferenced information to a WP:BLP article on Misplaced Pages, as you did at . -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read articles and preceding discussion before jumping in and deleting. Barsoomian (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• = you added unsourced info to a WP:BLP article. Again. After the above warning. Please do not do this again. -- Cirt (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And "again" you are just ignoring, in any case not responding to, previous discussion by the people who actually are familiar with the article. There is no contention with the text you deleted. I did not "add unsourced info". I restored info you had decided to delete for reasons that make no sense. No one ever contended that part of the article. And why are you harassing me personally here instead of engaging on the article discussion page? And by what right do you give me orders? You may notice that I tagged the article "refimprove" which is what you should have done instead of just erasing people's work. Since then some editors have already added some citations. What is the urgency? There was never any complaint from the subject, just one hysterical, banned, editor who is engaging in a flame war on many fronts for reasons I cannot guess at. Barsoomian (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Cirt took out from the article uncited content from a BLP, you inserted uncited content twice into the BLP, you should not have done that at all, under any circumstances. Your excuse to add uncited content to a BLP is that it had been there before, I am sorry but that is not good enough. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this was perfectly well justified. Cirt gutted the article for no reason, removing text that had never been disputed by by anyone. His remarks made it clear that he thought the passsages removed were the reason the article had been complained about -- THEY WERE NOT. It was only the (minuscule) "Reception" section that mentioned the poor reviews that had been complained about. He should have just marked it in need of citations, as I did. And in the event, after I did that, an effort was made, notably by GRuban, and now the article is apparently now well enough cited to be allowed to exist -- this is implicitly acknowledged by Cirt; see Talk:Herbert_Schildt#Thank you:

Many thanks to GRuban (talk · contribs), for improving the referencing of this article. Nice job. -- Cirt (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It was clear that Cirt was just not familiar with the issues, saw a "BLP controversy", and simply excised what he -- MISTAKENLY-- thought was the reason for the controversy. He ignored the questions on this subject on the article discussion page, and here, preferring just to repeat his initial, misinformed, statement and give me orders. As you are laying blame, I don't need an "excuse" for what I did, but I think Cirt does. I'd prefer to just forget the whole damn thing, but I will not accept your finger wagging. Barsoomian (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not mind if you accept my finger wagging or not. You were wrong to insert twice in a warring way uncited content to a biography of a living person. GRuben did a very respectful thing in regards to wikipedian editing and did the actual work to add the much needed citations to the content. Personally I would never ever find in my mind any excuse to add uncited content to a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't wrong. Since you insist on laying blame, you and Cirt were wrong in jumping into an article you had no knowledge of, deleting great swathes of it with no discussion with the editors who had been maintaining it, all because you both had the MISTAKEN BELIEF that the subject of the article had complained (you both stated that when you fnally deigned to explain your actions). It's quite true that much of the article was poorly sourced. However, it had been there in substantially that form for several years, before standards were tightened up. The parts Cirt deleted were not contentious, not derogatory, or potentially libellous, so no one had bothered with working in it. And after I had restored Cirt's deletion, and marked it as needing citations, it was very quickly brought up to standard -- yes, due mainly to GRuben, who I doubt would have done so if the text had been left in limbo. I reject your accusation of "edit warring". If you want to use "war" analogies, Cirt was the "aggressor". He attacked, I defended. He explicitly threatened me. You cannot deny that the article is now viable. And it could have been so without the assaults on it, all you had to do was mark sections as needing citations and explain the problem on the discussion page. There was no urgency at all. You allowed yourself to be stampeded by the ravings of the single banned editor who posts reams of complaints and accusations on the BLP noticeboard, and the article discussion page (before he was blocked). You responded to the loudest voice and decided to remove any possible grounds for complaint by removing anything that wasn't perfect instead of pointing out issues so they could be fixed. Barsoomian (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Hi, snow close it as keep is a good idea and perhaps full protection/ Its a mess. Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps just leave it open and allow the ip to see that process is followed. Off2riorob (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It won't mollify him. He's done this or variations of it several times. He just continues posting abuse and accusations of malice, with huge volume as you can see. Barsoomian (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Own

Thanks for having helped me to discover WP:OWN. That helped me put words on what I was thinking. Hektor (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like they don't welcome input. If you have three or four likeminded editors, you can revert anyone who disagrees. Barsoomian (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete Primeval Series 4 and Series 5 episodes?

Why did you delete Primeval Series 4 and Series 5 episodes? I was working on it? I couldnt create individual episode boxes because it was messing up the page so i decided to create individual pages. Please reply! Kabilan29 (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't delete the new articles you made. They're still there. (Primeval Series 4 and Primeval Series 5.) Though why you think that series 4 and 5, which are purely speculative, deserve separate articles when the real series 1-3 don't have separate articles I don't know. I expect many editors would delete them if they noticed, but I will just ignore them. I've been watching List of Primeval episodes for a while. People keep trying to add speculative stuff about future episodes. We don't know anything about those beyond the announcements, as already noted in the introduction. That's all we know for sure till they begin broadcasting. You can't list episodes years in advance of production, let alone broadcast, where everything is "TBA", that's just silly. So I will delete any such speculation, or links to the same, put on List of Primeval episodes. Barsoomian (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mate but I tried creating the episode boxes for Series 4 and Series 5 under Series 3 but it kept on messing up the page. That was why i decided to create new articles because It would be more clear and not so confusing to read! And Series 4 is starting just under 4 months. Check the Primeval Wikia! Kabilan29 (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So next year, when there is real, citable, information about episodes announced, it can be added to List of Primeval episodes. And I don't think splitting series to separate pages is clearer, or necessary, when there are only 6 or 7 episodes in each . Barsoomian (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you have a reason! Delete the Primeval Series 4 and Primeval Series 5 articles for now! I will create the episode boxes when we get closer to Series 4! Kabilan29 (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

While dinosaurs are nice, I think wolves are even better

PhilKnight has given you a pack of Wolves! Wolves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. This pack of Wolves must be fed three times a day and they will be your faithful companions forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a wolf, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

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

Speculative info in Primeval

Ok! But the info is real! It was shown at MCM London Expo! Kabilan29 (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe you. But it still has to be seen in a broadcast show before it can be put in here. Even things that have been announced by the makers of a show can change before the broadcast. So please wait until then. Barsoomian (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok! Anyway do you watch Primeval? Kabilan29 (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I wouldn't spend so much time looking after articles on a show I didn't watch. Though it's often silly it's very watchable. Barsoomian (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Check this out! Kabilan29 (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Primeval series 4 trailer on YouTube

Videos on YouTube are unreliable as sources unless uploaded by the network/creator (in this case, ITV, ProSieben, Watch, or Impossible Pictures). It's a silly rule, but that is what the sourcing guide said the last time I checked it. The primary reason, as it was explained to me, is copyright reasons. If the trailer has aired on TV then citing it in that manner would be acceptable. But simply posting a YouTube link with no other details is not. WP:LINKVIO and WP:VIDEOLINK explain this further; the former is a policy and the latter a common-sense recommendation. I was in a bit of a rush, and I did not have time to do a thorough read of the article, so I only skimmed the most obvious candidates. I intended to replace them with {{cn}}, but as I say I was in a bit of a rush and I forgot. You have done good work on those articles in the past; I've also dabbled in them from time to time where I felt that some edits were needed. There is no need to be snarky, as you were in your original message to me (or such is the way that I read it); we are all trying to get the same job done, which is to improve articles. I know that there are an almost uncountable amount of policies in effect now; I hope that my explanation and the pages I linked above have helped to explain the reasoning behind my edits to you. Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off as offensive. I've gotten my back up recently from actions by other administrators and vigilantes who just delete things with little or no explanation in articles they obviously have no interest in beyond enforcing some acronymic rule, which they refuse to discuss, beyond making veiled threats if anyone dissents. There are too many here who actually seem to enjoy deleting others' work. So yes, knowing I can never win against those who are so facile with the maze of policies, rules, noticeboards, and so on here, I sometimes do "snark". I don't go along with things I think are wrong or, frankly, inane, with good grace, I'm afraid. So I hope that you would consider that if you don't have time to deal with an issue, that you just tag it and/or leave it for later. This isn't some flagrant libel or gross abuse of copyright that absolutely HAS to be expunged immediately. But I do appreciate your comments here and am sure you are acting in good faith. (I don't just "assume good faith" any more, I'm afraid.)Barsoomian (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

inre this edit

moved to Talk:Godzilla_(2012_film_project)#Script

Planned films

Hello, thanks for your comments regarding the Godzilla reboot. I used to track future films through a related department at WikiProject Film, but I fell out of habit when WP:NFF was caught on. Unfortunately, lately there has been a can of worms opened with "film project" as disambiguation using news reports, so I will be returning my attention to future films, especially ones merely in planning. If you come across any, please let me know, and we can perform a proper merge. AFD is too much of a headache since the perception is that lack of a stand-alone article means it will not be mentioned anywhere (of course not true). Michael and I have gone back and forth historically about the threshold, so the debate really is for other editors. On a related note, I've written an essay fleshing out the WP:NFF argument. Happy editing! Erik (talk | contribs) 21:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Godzilla film project

I see that the second AfD on this article was declined. Which was a surprise to me as I usually lose arguments. I sincerely hope that I've not set up some sort of adversorial relationship on this topic with you. I only disagree with the deletion. If I've written anything to irk, sorry about that. As for the topic, I suggest 'let it be' for a while? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Godzilla (2012 film project)#Changing to redirect

I see you were involved in discussion on a previous AfD. Anything you'd like to add? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing new; I said it all, over and over. But apparently, following the Tinkerbell principle, if enough fans wish something existed, that's enough. Merge & redirect is the correct action given the current state of the "project", but I expect it will be reverted before the day is out. Barsoomian (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - I'm kind of expecting a fight, but let's see. I mean - if Man of Steel (film) is a redirect, it follows that this should be. There are plenty more examples. I have notified editors on both sides of the argument and asked for comment at the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film page... --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

For future reference...

I had no idea about the CP noticeboard you mentioned when you removed the copyvio tag I placed on Super (2010 American film). I've since found it and I thank you for the new info. However, I didn't bother filing an official report because I'm not sure I understand how to do it properly. I dropped a note on the WP:FILM page for help regarding that film and another I noticed around the same time. But for when I run into this in the future, I have a question: when the text can be found on multiple websites, is there a preference for which one I link to? With both Super and the other film, I found the text on dozens of sites. The only reason neither is quite an exact match is because of anon detail creep. Millahnna (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

One source, that looks "official" is enough. However, be aware that a lot of sites copy from Misplaced Pages, and it may actually be that Misplaced Pages was the source. Also, I almost reported you for unconstructive editing; it's an extreme measure to basically blank the whole page. If you have concerns you should raise them with a tag on the text, or on the talk page. See these tags, eg, "non-free" and "copypaste".

But in this case, "anon detail creep" means that it's not a "copypaste" copyvio , even if it began that way. Simply condensing and rewording is usually enough to legitimise it for use here I think. Especially in the case of movie/TV summaries, where the source is probably a press release, the owners will never complain about it being copied, it's only a matter for what Misplaced Pages needs, so there is no need to act precipitately. I would recommend you simply look at it and rewrite it yourself rather than reporting. Generally just making it a bit more balanced and less like a movie poster is fine. Just my opinion, ask on the copyright noticeboard if you want an authoritative (but probably more hardline) response. Barsoomian (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. Regarding the detail creep: in that instance, and based on what you've said here, I think I'd opt for a "Close paraphrase" tag if I ran into something similar in the future. Does that sound about right to you? Unfortunately, I couldn't rewrite the plot for Super. I haven't seen the film yet and its plot was just a studio blurb instead of a complete summary (so I couldn't work around the assumption that the basic text was right and rephrase from there).

About the blanking specifically: this is something I picked up from watching a series of edits in the past. The experienced editors were doing this as a temporary stop gap measure and explaining that removing the copyright violation was of greater concern than having something in the section. From what you're saying, I'm gathering that this may not be universally true. Correct?

Again, thanks for getting back to me. Just when I think I've got the hang of things I run into something else. :D Millahnna (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, my opinions are my own and I've conflicted with people of such issues in the past. For instance, copying a page of text from a book or a magazine is a blatant and extreme copyvio and would warrant immediate action to remove it. However, this was a paragraph from a press release, and not word for word. There is no real legal risk to WP in using this. So you can just raise the matter on the article talk page and ask involved editors what they think and if they can address it. Usually it will be fixed pretty soon, or in a few days. If not you can either fix it yourself or report it on the CP noticeboard. And I've reworded lots of descriptions without having seen the actual media described. Cut out the peacock words, teasers and praise and you are left with something serviceable. Look at a few reviews for other details. It doesn't have to be 100% your own words, as long as it isn't 100% from a single source. Barsoomian (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It's funny; I've done that with plots that were complete (rewrite plots for films I haven't seen, I mean) but with a studio blurb to a film I haven't seen I just wasn't comfortable with it. My instinct was to replace it with a complete plot which I couldn't do without a framework to go on. It never occurred to me to just write a better blurb. Sometimes I astound myself with my slowness. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, admin or no you've been at it longer than I and getting insight of other editors always helps me find my way around the joint. Millahnna (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Primeval Series 5

Dracorex: if you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on your talk page so we don't have to jump around.

I'll watch your page so I'll know if you respond. Barsoomian (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Hangover: Part II

• I did not mess up any refs, I changed MASON to Mason. That didn't do a damn thing to mess anything up.
• Misplaced Pages does not like lists.
• No GA film article should contain a simple list of cast members. If it does it must have been made GA a long time ago
• The cast section should concern CASTING information
• I didn't originally add the information I just rewrote it
• He has the most information because he is the only one who anyone has added information for. If you want to write a paragraph for the others feel free, go get the information and add it. Doing so is not my concern, I'm working with the information present not going hunting more down I have better things to do.

Conclusion You're edits are detrimental to the article because you're removing information. As I said, go look at Alien (film) and Spider-Man (film) for a start. It should briefly describe the character and any pertinent casting information about them. That more information has been added for Mason Lee is not at issue, that it hasn't been added for others is. That is however not my problem and not a valid reason for removing that information present. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Conclude what you like. It's ridiculous to have all that guff about Lee in the cast list. Find somewhere else to put it. Barsoomian (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I forgot the part where you were an administrator or the page owner and could dictate how it is meant to be. I'll put it where I god damn please, in the cast section where funnily enough, casting information would go and I've provided evidence to that effect.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the detail is fine. We shouldn't take it out entirely but put it somewhere more appropriate if necessary. It seems that the paragraph in "Cast" is devoted to people not in the list, right? Is it possible to have a second paragraph (above the existing one) that can discuss the main actors and Mason Lee as well, since Lee is the sought-for person in the film? For example, I can't remember which actors reprise their roles (other than the main three) and which are new. Maybe we can start off with a sentence categorizing these and mention Lee as one of the newcomers? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the lawsuit should be given its own section as it gives it undue weight so I tried to come up with a compromise. I made it a sub-section under release as the plaintiff is effectively trying to stop the film's release as well as receive monetary compensation. I expanded the sub-section reflecting this using wording from source article. I hope this works for everybody.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me all the detail you added gave it more "weight". I just wanted it to be in an appropriate section, and "Release" seems an odd fit, though better than "Marketing". The tattooist's aim isn't to stop the release; that's a side effect (or the threat), not not the aim. But as long as it has its own head it doesn't matter much what level it is.Barsoomian (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox television

Regarding your revert: Currently the infobox reads "No. of episodes: 6", which at the very least is misleading, as evident by previous changes in this article and in those of most other current TV series. Yes, the documentation of {{Infobox television}} (a different template!) asks to only list aired episodes. However, the documentation already makes provisions to also show number of produced episodes in case of a canceled series, so I don't think that whoever wrote this text necessarily demanded to ever only list the number or released episodes (which, in the case of Game of Thrones, is actually 7, since one additional episode was made available to subscribers on various Internet portals) -- not to mention that unless there's a community consensus for only listing aired episodes, the comment in the documentation doesn't carry much weight.
I see only advantages in extending the information to list both released and produced episodes, as I explained in the edit summary when I made the edit, as long as reliable sources can back it up. Why do you think it's bad to be explicit there?
Amalthea 20:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article talk page. So I am copying your remarks above there and will respond there. Barsoomian (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Impossible Pictures

In case you weren't aware, rather than recreating Impossible Pictures from scratch, as the article was deleted because the prod was uncontested, you could have just requested it be undeleted and fixed the existing version. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I got the text from the Google cache. There were only two paras. Seemed better to do that immediately than waiting around while people were busily destroying all the links and templates. Barsoomian (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive.org shows more content than just two paragraphs. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive.org is from 2008/9. That version seems to be basically a list of programs and awards. Google's cache is a few days old, since it shows the AfD. I'll paste in some of that older stuff. Barsoomian (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Unaired?

so what if its unaired?, that IP is listing the number of episodes that have been ordered for the series, not the number of episodes that have been aired...Until those articles get their own "List of <name of series>_episodes", that number should stay.... please revert your edits ...--Stemoc (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The edits made by Barsoomian were appropriate. The "|num_episodes=" field is for the number of episodes released. Since no episodes have aired the field should be empty. By convention, the "|num_seasons=" and "|num_episodes=" fields should follow each other, so leaving "|num_seasons=" empty is also OK. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that at Template:Infobox television "num_episodes" is defined as "The number of episodes released." In other words, those actually broadcast, NOT the number planned. The number ordered may or may not be made, let alone broadcast. The number of episodes of a current show is the number broadcast, for these shows that is zero. (Look at the infobox of any TV show currently in mid-season and you will see this.) The ordered eps can be mentioned in the text of the article, of course. Barsoomian (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Compliment

Kudos on that great find you added to The Marvel Super Heroes! Much, much better infobox art. Happy Wiki'ing-- Tenebrae (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Austin Powers

Hello, about two days ago I added to the Austin Powers page that their was a fourth movie coming out in 2013 and I provided a link to prove it. When you reversed my edit you wrote "not happening, see talk page". So why isn't it happening? ---StevenBjerke 21:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Not MY talk page, the article's: Talk:Austin_Powers_(film_series)#Austin_Powers_4_Page. Barsoomian (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

DRN initiated

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "New Amsterdam (TV series)". Thank you. --Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It was recommended at DRN that my complaint more properly belonged Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Barsoomian.

So

You're in a conflict with User:Jack_Sebastian, correct? Let's pretend that I'm a complete newcomer to this and haven't read any of your previous discourse. All I know is that there's a grievance being aired. What's your side of things? m.o.p 19:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Just leaving a note here at the top so it's out of the way. I had to take an unexpected leave of absence earlier this month and wasn't in a position to continue mediating this issue satisfactorily. I'll be back to full capacity in few days and we'll get right back into things. My deepest apologies. Cheers, m.o.p 18:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Barsoomian's view

First you should look at the article New Amsterdam (TV series) that ran for 8 episodes in 2008. The article reached a stable state a few months later and had just had a few tweaks since. My contributions were minor, but myself and MJBurrage seem to be the only editors still engaged now. The unusual feature of the article is the "Timeline", listing dates and events in Amsterdam's 400-year-long life, derived from events shown in flashback in various episodes. The details of this and the rest were the subject of lively debate at the time, including their legitimacy and whether they were OR or SYN. Like all articles about TV shows, the major source was and is the show itself, a primary source, lacking any detailed secondary sources beyond a few brief reviews.

At 14:46, 31 October 2011, Sebastian made his first appearance with this edit and the comment "(?Timeline: rm utter Sherlocking as per WP:OR and WP:SYN)", Sebastian deleted the entire Timeline.

This was reverted at 15:26, 31 October 2011 by MJBurrage comment "(Only the last paragraph had any synthesis. The rest is just dated details from episodes.)" MJBurrage followed up 23:05, 31 October 2011? "(?Timeline: Convert the few editorial comments to mere statements on apparent inconsistency.) " and cleaned up a few things as he notes.

Sebastian repeated his wholesale deletion 12:17, 7 November 2011, " (I disagree - most of this requires deduction and synthesis to put together. If you think we need to discuss the matter, please feel free to initiate a discussion on the talk page)"

He had just repeated his delete rather than following the D in BRD and discussing his concerns on the talk page first. So I reverted here "(Undid revision 459404934 by Jack Sebastian (talk) You've been reverted twice If you want to delete, make a case on the talk page.)" and opened a Talk section. Talk:New Amsterdam (TV series)#Timeline as OR? as below:

Someone keeps deleting the timeline as WP:OR. I disagree, it's just events from the episodes arranged chronologically. There aren't any new facts deduced, just a listing of things presented in the show, ordered chronologically. Many articles have "biographies" of fictional characters derived in exactly the same way. E.g., James_Bond_(character)#Literary_Bond, Thor_(Marvel_Comics)#Fictional_character_biography, Horatio_Hornblower#Fictional_biography, Sherlock_Holmes#Life. I don't think these are WP:OTHERCRAP. The only difference is the presentation as a table rather than prose. Barsoomian (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You can see how it went from there. He mentioned a few niggles, which had been discussed at length and resolved years ago in previous discussion; MJBurrage addressed those in any case.

I asked several times for Sebastian to make posts on each issue, or to put relevant tags in the article, so they could be addressed in detail. He responded with walls of text explaining basic Misplaced Pages principles in a very patronising way, but not clarifying his specific issues with the article. This did get my back up and he began accusing me of various incivilities, which I thought was entirely hypocritical considering his high handed and dismissive attitude.

MJBurrage also asked Sebastian several times to specify where the problems were, most recently today.

So it has been impossible to actually discuss the problems with the article Sebastian keeps alluding to as he refuses to be specific as to what they are. Despite Sebastian's initial assertion that the entire timeline should be deleted as OR and SYN, he then proposed to convert it to prose. I failed to see how simply changing the presentation would affect any of the issues that had been so important earlier. It looked to me now as if his aim was simply to put his stamp on the article, even though I rather strongly suspect he is unfamiliar with the show, from his lack of any positive contributions to the article and questioning of events depicted plainly on screen.

At this point he saw he had failed to convince MJBurrage and myself (we were the only active editors on the article who responded) to follow his lead, so he made an RFC to try to draw in support.

He made this post on my talk page:

I would like you to take a moment and look at your posts to me. Try to do so without blaming me for how you have been acting. You need to take a step back and relax, as all of your posts have been snarky and littered with personal attacks. This doesn't promote collaborative editing; instead it creates unnecessary personality conflict. I deserve to be treated in the same way you would wish to. Please be more civil. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Which I took exception to and responded :

At first with this:

Please don't put any more of this crap on my talk page. Your reversal of the situation is breathtakingly delusional, or designed to make me lose my temper and give you an excuse to lay a complaint. You've been nothing but insulting, patronising and dismissive. Clearly it's impossible for you to conceive that anyone who disagrees with you deserves any respect. Barsoomian (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Which on reflection I thought inflammatory (though not unjustified) so I cut it down a few minutes later:

Please don't put any more of this crap on my talk page. Barsoomian (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sebastian cited the original version in his complaint.

Sebastian opened a new front when he followed me to another article. The details are as recounted at the Wikiquette post :

Sebastian and myself are engaged in a content dispute at another page (New Amsterdam (TV series)) where he has made several accusations against me, and also initiated a DRN. In the meantime he's followed me to other pages, in particular to Talk:Ben Linus where I had noticed that some comments were out of sequence, and in conformance with WP:REFACTOR ( "Restructuring... Moving a comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion") I moved a few recent (well, 2009) comments placed out of sequence at the top of the page to the bottom. Shortly after I found Sebastian had reverted my edit, stating only "undo as per WP:REFACTOR", which made no sense. So I reverted it with a comment that may have been provocative ("undoing revert by stalker"). Predictably, he then reverted my edit, but added the false accusation that I had "delete others' conversations". In fact, not one word was deleted. I only moved entire sections. Then he proceeded to archive the page to make reverting difficult.

The edit history:

• 04:02, 9 November 2011 Jack Sebastian (784 bytes) (step 3 was filling the new archive. Step 3 is removing the info from here, as it is present in a linked archive) (undo)
• 03:54, 9 November 2011 Jack Sebastian (80,023 bytes) (like this - step 1 of 3) (undo)
• 03:52, 9 November 2011 Jack Sebastian (79,966 bytes) (Undid revision 459641006 by Barsoomian (talk) undo as per WP:REFACTOR - we don't delete others' conversations. If you want to get rid of older conversations, you archive them) (undo)
• 23:30, 8 November 2011 Barsoomian (79,971 bytes) (Undid revision 459477319 by Jack Sebastian (talk) undoing revert by stalker) (undo)
• 00:39, 8 November 2011 Jack Sebastian (79,966 bytes) (Undid revision 459434856 by Barsoomian (talk) undo as per WP:REFACTOR) (undo)
• 18:09, 7 November 2011 Barsoomian m (79,971 bytes) (ordered chronologically) (undo)
• 01:45, 3 March 2011 Sanders11 (79,966 bytes) (tidy) (undo)

I posted on his talk page here, pointing out that he had made a false accusation against me (now enshrined forever in the edit history) and asking him to respond. He deleted my comment and when I reposted, he made this unpleasant response, full of more accusations of bad behaviour on my part, including an assertion that my edits were wrong, though on different grounds, but not withdrawing let alone apologising for his initial charge. I'm not experienced in negotiating the formal dispute mechanisms here; though I see that Sebastian has very often, but I need a bit of guidance: First were my edits above wrong or ill-advised? Second, how do I deal with this guy, who continually attacks my work, integrity and character? Barsoomian (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In all his responses he failed to justify his charge I had "deleted" comments, simply attacked me for my various crimes elsewhere. Also the page Talk:Ben Linus was stubbed by his action, quite unnecessarily hiding previous discussion, on a page wasn't over-long and had had no new post for two years this was obviously done to spite me.

This small incident illustrates his style of interaction: total confidence that he is correct and that anyone who doesn't agree with whatever he thinks is right is just ignorant or a malicious troll. So first he tries to "educate" you with a long patronising exposition of basic principles that are not in dispute, then applies the Chewbacca defense to conclude he is correct and you are obviously wrong. If you question that, he goes into full on attack.

I see he's done this with other editors quite frequently, ending up as the complainant or object of several ANI complaints. After three years here, despite several sometimes heated conflicts, I've never appeared at either ANI or Wikiquette until this week. I was frankly astonished at the speed at which he escalated our disagreements to this level.

I know I can be abrasive myself, but my motives in all this were to preserve the useful result of a lot of work by other editors from capricious deletion.

Questions? Barsoomian (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing that jumps out. I'll come back once Jack's answered my question on his talk page. Thanks. m.o.p 13:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Note on Jack Sebastian's version

You asked me to point out grievous misrepresentation, so, here's one: in Sebastian's version of events he says: "Barsoomian is of the opinion that no amount of work will get the article to GA or FA quality, as the series only ran for 8 episodes, and and that no sources existed beyond the 9 already listed in the article." He doesn't actually cite or quote me saying that, because I didn't. He had claimed this a few times in the Amsterdam talk page, and I pointed out at least twice what I actually wrote was "It is never going to get any more critical attention or secondary sources." Which is very different and I clarified and qualified this later, "I said there aren't going to be any new ones. All the links you found were reviews of the pilot, adding no analysis worth noting. Of course, that is just my prediction, but it's more realistic than your proposed turning this into a FA by gutting it and converting a table into prose." And he actually conceded that: here: "it is true that no new citations have come out since the show's cancellation," which was exactly what I had said, yet he now contradicts himself. While I am aghast at his interpretations of other comments, this is a simple falsehood; trivial in itself and more harm to his credibility for his repetition of it. In any case, I had made clear subsequently to him what I meant, and for him to now say "Barsoomian is of the opinion..." after all that is deliberate misrepresentation of my opinion. (And of equal veracity to his other statements about my character and motives.) Barsoomian (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This is hilarious. He's since added a ref here with the comment "I'm off to bed now; just needed to link that thing that the other user swears he never said". Which is the same link that I used above to prove I didn't. One of us has a serious reading comprehension problem. Barsoomian (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Film projects

Category:Film projects, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Godzilla / Godzilla (franchise)

I see you moved a section from one article to another - is there a case for merging the two articles, as they certainly seem to have a lot of common information? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. Best discussed on the article talk page. My feeling is that both articles are quite long, so that two articles are justified if they can have their focus sharpened. That's why I thought the performers were better on the Godzilla page rather than the franchise. The performers were already credited in the infobox there anyway. Any other duplication should be cut from one or the other as appropriate. And all the Godzilla monsters have their own articles, so it would be odd not to have one just for him. Barsoomian (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - the Godzilla page should really concentrate on the character, and the Godzilla (franchise) on the films, media, etc. for example the "series history" section. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And thinking about it - maybe the franchise should be at Godzilla and the character at Godzilla (character) --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple contenders for Godzilla, two movies, the monster, the franchise at least. Considering there are Terminator (franchise)], Alien (franchise), Predator (franchise), etc., I think the franchise should remain as named. Most of the monsters listed in Godzilla template have articles named simply for the monster, so Godzilla follows that pattern. But it's probably more correct to have Godzilla be a disambiguation page and Godzilla (character). If you want to do that go ahead and see the reaction. Barsoomian (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Legio IX again

If that is the history of the article, then it's best to mark it on the Talk page with a

This page is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

.

As for the Oxbridge quibble, your choice.
One of them looks a hell of a lot like Canadian spelling. Varlaam (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Episode list for Dinosaur Revolution?

Hi, Barsoomian! I noticed some of the nice work you've done on the episode lists for various prehistory documentaries. My question is if you could do a similar thing for Dinosaur Revolution (it doesn't have an episode list yet). As the main contributor to that article, I'd appreciate it. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 20:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I put in a skeleton episode list table. Let me know if you need any help with it. Barsoomian (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

	Thank you!
	Thanks for your help on Dinosaur Revolution, and merry Christmas! Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 20:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Legio IX Hispana". Thank you. --99.101.160.126 (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The brain does work while you sleep!

That IP at DR? Obviously not a newbie but I couldn't recall who it was. Woke up in the middle of the night with the name in my head - had to get up to right it down. I've checked and it's obvious. I've just come back from the gym and have some stuff I have to do but will be raising an SPI when I finish. Just leaving you to see if you can recall who it is - as you've posted to the account talk page in the past, and not that long ago. Not over BCE, but.... Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I could guess, but I'm not sure and it could be unpleasant if I was wrong and started another storm. I've sparred with more than one of that type. Barsoomian (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Busier than I thought so haven't done anything. I'm thinking of . What do you think? Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. For one thing, V is Canadian, and 99 seems to be in Texas. Also Looking at V's old edits, I don't see a similar mania, though he did get involved in a few BC/BCE edit wars. 99 is probably a sock of someone already banned. Barsoomian (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't want to accuse anyone unjustly and V does some good work, and I was having second thoughts and kept searching and found a more likely possibility but that editor is no longer editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, J looks a lot more likely. Also I came across this old debate: Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate which I guess resulted in the current WP:ERA. J made an interesting statement there. Barsoomian (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, do you think an SPI worthwhile? He seems like the sort who wouldn't give up. Out to the theatre now. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if he wants to argue his point let him do it as J and not a disposable IP. Barsoomian (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That IP

Probably best if you disengage from his talk page at this point, it's getting nowhere (which is no surprise). If further issues come up then that would be a different story. Dougweller (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Barsoomian (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Touch

Hm fair enough, but if TV series is going to go there, series should go to the 80s one :) Also: when only the pilot has aired, is it even right to call it a series? Why not Touch (episode)? :) Y12J (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Touch" is in production, it's certainly a series. There isn't an article about the 80s series, so its name is moot. It'd probably be "Touch (Japanese TV series)" if created now. And there are many articles listed at Touch (disambiguation), so why make a note in the head of this article mentioning just the one? Barsoomian (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: #

You were wrong in failing to use the article discussion page for the purpose it was designed. AussieLegend's page is on my watchlist, so I became aware of the problem. Believe me, I have restrained myself from interacting in some of your other edits which I found to be problematic. This is a collaborative project; please keep that in mind when revert-warring,a nd we need never really interact. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Go away. Barsoomian (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I will remind you that you contacted me initially. Follow the pretty broad instructions above and we won't be chatting. Ignore them, and we will. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The initial "contact" was your reversion of my edits with snarky misspelled comments, explicitly breaking the commitment we both made. Your desire to score points does not override that. Aussielegend is quite capable of attacking me all by himself. Barsoomian (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to overlook the snarky comment about Aussielegend that leads one to believe you aren't really exercising the assumption of good faith. You are going to want to rein that in before it becomes more of a net detriment than you are going to want it to.

Additionally, I was a little confused when you referred to a supposed "interaction ban" between the two of us. As I recall, we decided to stop interacting until User: M.O.P. could sort out the issues between us. Not a ban. A request. After four months of utter dereliction of that process by M.O.P, I am choosing to consider that request null and void. If he doesn't want to give a crap about resolving the issue, then neither am I. I am not going to run away every time I see you acting less than appropriate in pages and with users I interact with. I am not going to follow you around (like I would have either the time or inclination to do); my running into you was simply an unhappy coincidence. Deal with it, and move on; you aren't being given bad advice. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Great. I have another stalker. Barsoomian (talk)

February 2012

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:List of The Almighty Johnsons episodes. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. I'm referring specifically to this edit, but you are well aware that there have been other instances recently that are uncivil, bordering on personal attacks. AussieLegend (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

? That wasn't an attack. It was a jocular way of pointing out a fact that he was certainly well aware of, but had pretended not to be. Certainly it was nothing that warrants you butting in. So, you guys are teaming up now, taking turns to revert me and "defend" each other's honour from any remark I make that is not meekly accepting of your authority. Barsoomian (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on your recent edit history I have no doubt that it was not jocular. You need to revise the way that you interract with other editors. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Not jocular"? Yeah, I was giving a serious medical diagnosis. For the record, that also is a joke, since sadly it appears you can't recognise one unless it's signposted and has a laughtrack. I thought it preferable to question his memory rather than his veracity. Your continued assumption of stupidity and malice in everything I do -- which you formalise in your precious templated warnings -- is very wearying. I dislike your style of "interaction" -- warnings, acronymic jargon, condescending "advice"-- but recognise you are basically honest. Do me the same courtesy. Barsoomian (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

AntarCtica (The Guardian episode)

Thank you for reminding me that Antarctica has to be written with a C between Antar and tica. Teysz Kamieński (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AMC programming list

Some of the information marked under syndicated programming was actually inaccurate: for example, CSI: Miami was not listed (I added it to one of the changes I made with a Los Angeles Times article as a reference) and it also incorrectly listed The Dick Van Dyke Show and I Love Lucy (however, multiple listings sources, including AMC's own website do not list either of those two shows on the schedule). TVtonightOKC (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, it also listed The Rifleman as having debuted on AMC in 2010, however, the network did not air the series until April 1, 2011, when the network launched a block of western-themed films and series on Saturdays. TVtonightOKC (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Correcting facts like that is fine. I dont know anything about the syndicated programs, I concentrate on the original ones.

It is impossible to see what you were doing, amongst all the formatting changes and no edit summaries at all. Changing the entire organisation of the page requires discussion and consensus. I am going offline now and will check back tomorrow. Barsoomian (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Apes DRN

I'm sorry that the WP:DRN#Prequel discussion seems not to have served your needs. It seemed as if you were allowing for the different nuances among listings and I thought there was progress toward agreement on that. (I would be surprised if instead you had been looking for a monolithic list, as you have appeared to consistently uphold pillars and guidance like WP:Source list.) If you want to reopen discussion, please use the DRN link above where I have posted a possible mockup based on everyone's input. (OTOH, WP can be very gradualist and sometimes coming back months later is actually the best approach.) JJB 17:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Source list: "Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying."

Well, no one at the DRN paid any attention to that, did they?

DRN isn't the right place to initiate discussion -- that's where you go after discussion on the Talk page has broken down. You should go back to Talk:Prequel and see if anyone is actually interested in doing anything aside from deleting -- I have my doubts if there will be any follow through. Anyway, while I do appreciate your invitation, I feel too bruised by the argument to participate. But I'll give an opinion here, for what its worth. My problem with the idea of "nuanced list" is that it would just create more contention. It sounds like a mechanism to allow works to be relegated to some "Not a real prequel" list if some editors want to get it out of sight, but are cautious about just deleting a cited work (not that that stopped Gothicfilm from simply deleting the works I cited ... but there I go again). If we can't even agree whether a work is a prequel or not, how can we agree what exact kind of prequel it is? What criteria would be used? It seems that the WT:FILM group is determined to make up their own definitions without regard for dictionaries or reviews any other published source. It would be entirely subjective and determined by the loudest and most persistent voices. Gothicfilm made it clear at an early stage that he had a firm idea of what a "real prequel" was, a concept and definition that he just made up out of thin air, and cited himself as if these rules were carved in stone. I was shocked that other editors accepted this idea. I can't edit under those rules. I gave a dozen cites of Rise being a prequel, and that was just brushed aside. I realised it was pointless to try any more. Barsoomian (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

At this instant, Gothic has permitted Rise to stay in the list for now. Question: I know the word "Barsoomian" from an old puzzle tamed by Martin Gardner; is that your derivation too? Puzzles are one genre I really appreciate. JJB 14:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? It's decided by whether he "permits" it? I note he has deleted the TV series "Planet of the Apes" without justification other than it offends him. Also wants to reinstate some absurd definition that was placed in the article a while ago by a like-minded IP editor without any source. But I will hold back from rejoining the fray, he would just call his posse in. "Barsoomian" derives from Edgar Rice Burroughs' Mars stories, recently filmed as John Carter. But I was reading the books 40 years ago. I also read Gardner in Sci Am and some of his books. Barsoomian (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't say it's decided by permission; I wanted to encourage you that Gothic too is making a step toward compromise. I'm not analyzing the TV show right now but that can be done in time, and all the defs currently in it are sourced and his unsourced is unlikely to recur. But I do want to work with you toward a resolution. Yup, that must be where Gardner got it. JJB 18:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Odd how he will "compromise" with you but he simply reverted and threatened me over exactly the same text. Anyway, he's already deleted the POTA TV series and the 70s movies. So not much of a "compromise". He's just more polite with you.

Well, if you want to examine the relationship between the various "classic" Apes features (you probably don't, but here it is anyway) -- some references: An archived copy of the Planet of the Apes Timeline, originally published by Marvel Comics, who did an authorised series of comics on the subject. That places all the '70s movies, the '73 TV series and the comics, in one timeline. I.e., no "reboot", no "alternate timeline". The recent book Timeline of the Planet of the Apes from Hasslein Books also follows this interpretation. Some fans of course have other opinions. See Circular vs Linear Timelines (a wikia, so not citeable in itself, but can be examined on its own merits) which discusses the theories exhaustively, and concludes "However, most Planet of the Apes fans - both casual and devoted - consider the movie series to be a continuous loop; that either the contradictions were due to mistaken or misleading statements of history, or that if there was a change in history it merely brought events forward but with the same ultimate catastrophic conclusion." Moer authoritatively, regarding the 70s movies, the major writer of the scripts, Paul Dehn stated in an interview in 1972:

While I was out there , Arthur Jacobs said he thought this (Conquest) would be the last so I fitted it together so that it fitted in with the beginning of APES 1, so that the wheel had come full circle and one could stop there quite happily, I think?

— January 1972

Regarding Battle, the Apes wikia cites him from Planet of the Apes Revisited by Joe Russo and Larry Landsman: "Dehn stated that the tear was to tell the audience that Caesar's efforts ultimately failed - as with Conquest, Dehn was concerned with bringing the saga full-circle rather than changing history for the better, an idea specifically incorporated into the first Corrington treatment."

That they weren't referred to as "prequels" on their release isn't dissuasive; the term "prequel" didn't come into common use until decades later. There are far fewer continuity problems with these than with Rise, but the latter has a surfeit of articles and statements by notable people calling it a "prequel". So from this it is justifiable, and verifiable, to put Escape, Conquest, and Battle, Rise and the TV series all as filling in the history of the 1968 POTA; which makes them "prequels" under the normal (dictionary) definition. Grey them if you like.

On whether being a prequel or reboot precludes a film from being a prequel as well: Sequel has some interesting analysis. It includes prequels as a special kind of sequel. "The 2009 film Star Trek, is one such case; by means of a time travel plot it is at once a prequel, sequel and reboot to the 1960's television series of exactly the same name." And the numerous other examples I gave of films being described with two or more of these terms simultaneously.

I don't have the patience and ability to turn the other cheek to deal with Gothic, and I'm not asking you to fight my battles. After digging al this up I wanted to put it somewhere, so I offer this as background, do with it as you think best. Barsoomian (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, there are (other) people on WP that I believe have trouble compromising with me. I've learned that hinting at their motives doesn't help much, because it's rare for a person to hear such a hint and give the "right" response, namely, "yes I have a blind spot thanks". Usually I get told my own blind spots. So it's best to stick to facts, logic, policy, etc., as you are pretty much doing.

This is a good breather spot in the editing flurry; I'd recommend you review the current wording and see if there are any big issues on your part other than not listing the 2-3 older Apes movies and the TV series. It does look like a good first round of negotiation from my POV. It even includes language parallel to the "sequel" language you quote above, mostly sourced.

I want to do a little of my own source research and come back later. When I do I will need to consider the above links carefully along with the FILM project views and maybe that'll iron out as well. JJB 15:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The current introductory text looks sensible. While it doesn't mention the mutually exclusive argument that Gothic and Betty stated in their comments ("a reboot can't also be a prequel", etc), Gothic still apparently thinks this justifies his deletions. Otherwise, the text concentrates too much on the unusual, and disputable examples instead of the simpler cases. And the "Usage" section ONLY mentions films. Despite the term being first used in literature. And there is no mention of games, comics, anime or TV at all, you'll note the extensive lists devoted to those. This is not a subsidiary article to WP:FILM, despite what they think. Barsoomian (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

How tiresome that Gothic is still denigrating me personally in Talk:Prequel. "one user who alone was going against everyone else's consensus " , "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented". If its a "minority view", he should have no trouble finding sources to support the "majority view" that he claims he represents. Instead, he just rounded up his gang at WT:FILM and got them to support him, regardless. "We got consensus, we don't need no sources." Barsoomian (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic TV list

Thanks for compiling the list for TV-stuff relating to Titanic. Television certainly qualifies as "popular culture", and deserves mention somewhere. It didn't belong in list form on the pop culture article, and I was concerned about opening a can of worms on the Films list. This solution is probably the best one; folks now have someplace to add TV entries without disturbing the other articles. Thanks again, regards, ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent New World stuff

With the recent swath of Primeval: New World info that has come about in the last couple of months I've made some significant changes to the article, the net result of which you may or may not agree with. I'm thinking that when it actually starts airing, the episodes should go into a new List of Primeval: New World episodes rather than the List of Primeval episodes one; Haines's statement that it is a spin-off in the same vein as the numerous different CSI series, and thus separate to Primeval, is the clincher to that for me. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything objectionable. Currently I'm watching that article mostly for vandalism and wacky rumours ("confirmed that blah blah blah", with no source). When it airs it'll all be revised again anyway. It's definitely a different series to the UK one (unlike say Torchwood: Miracle Day, which was a continuation), so it should have separate episode lists. A single list would make numbering the seasons a problem, there is a faint hope that Primeval could have another series of its own. But we can use the existing Lists of Primeval Characters/ Creatures/Anomalies for PNW, using references to episodes like say PNW1.2. Barsoomian (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic (2012 TV miniseries)

Hi. From where I'm sitting, your multiple columns rearrangement is not working. Will you check it out again, pls. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it worked fine for me. But I tried another way. If that's still no good, feel free to revert to one long column. Barsoomian (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks OK by me. Bjenks (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Walking with Dinosaurs

Hi I work for Impossible Pictures. I was asked by one of the company directors (Mr Tim Haines) to correct errors that he saw in the Walking with Dinosaurs page. Mr Haines was the creator of Walking with Dinosaurs when he was at the BBC. The changes have been removed. I am told I need to provide proof or I could be banned. Please explain how to do so as no pages I can find on Misplaced Pages make this clear. If you check the IP this came from it is listed against Impossible Pictures for whom Mr Haines is a director. Please check out the web page.

Thanks

Paul S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impossiblepictures wiki (talk • contribs) 10:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've explained this over and over.

Today at your User talk:Impossiblepictures wiki

Before then at User talk:82.69.97.164 (who I guess was also you).

Editors can't just say "I know this for a fact". You have to cite a verifiable source. A newspaper story. A page at the BBC or other official website. Barsoomian (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Again

Please can you check out the Mail Online:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085030/T-rex-comes-town-Stunning-10m-life-size-dinosaurs-stomps-Britain.html

and the Times Online. If you do a search for Tim Haines one of the results is:

Quote The monster hit that’s coming to a theatre near you Ben Hoyle

   The Times
   Published: 13 November 2008
   TV & Radio

...biggest carnivore of them all features in a bloodcurdling climax in which it fights to protect its baby from predators.Tim Haines, creator and producer of the BBC series, which was seen by 700 million people worldwide and won six Emmys and three... Unquote

Unfortunately The Time Online is behind a paywall and I cannot direct you to a particular page.

I hope this clears things up and we can at least change the "Created by" credit.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impossiblepictures wiki (talk • contribs) 13:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no question that Haines is a creator of the show. He's already listed. Your cite confirms that, but not that he is the ONLY creator. I don't know where the other names came from, but they've been in the article for a long time so we need some source to remove them. It's odd that there is no information about WWD (that I can find) at impossiblepictures.co.uk, even in the "archives". Maybe you should add a page for WWD there, that's under your control. I think you should for historical reasons anyway, even if it was before the company was actually created. Then that can be cited. The BBC has no production info at all. Barsoomian (talk)

Hi Again

I appreciate what you are saying - but the show wasn't produced by Impossible Pictures it was a BBC Production when Mr Haines was working there. I agree the BBC site offers no further info (or I would have directed you there). The show is 13 years old this year so I don't know how to get the citations you need. Mr Haines has asked me to update only recently.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impossiblepictures wiki (talk • contribs) 15:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand, who trusts anything they read in Misplaced Pages? Not me. Any idiot can edit, and many do. So just forget it. (There are a lot of dinosaur nutters that like to add their own comments to any dinosaur related page, one reason I pay attention to Walking with Dinosaurs.)

If it is actually important to you, create a simple webpage at impossiblepictures.co.uk on WWD and cite that. You can carefully explain that it was made by the BBC, list all the creatives involved, everyone will be happy. Barsoomian (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - will pass this info on and See. Impossiblepictures wiki (talk • contribs) 16:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Me again -

If we update Mr Haines' Bio page and other references on www.impossiblepictures.co.uk to reflect that he was the sole creator of Walking with Dinosaurs(a separate page on our website could be problematic) would this be sufficient as a citation. The site is regularly visited by thousands of visitors?

Thanks, please let me know. Impossiblepictures wiki (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what page it's on. But it should list all the people who had a major role in the show. Basically the same as the credits of the show. Barsoomian (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Walking With Dinosaurs: The Origins

We have added a published by... on the Walking with Dinosaurs - The Origins site and linked to it from both the Impossible Pictures page of the Impossible site and from Mr Haines page also. I hope this is OK

Impossiblepictures wiki (talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks all respectable now. The important thing is that sources are credible and verifiable. "Impossible Pictures" itself is credible, but a site that just appeared isn't. Plenty of sites on the web look very nice but are just made up by some obsessive or joker. But I hope you're not going to let that site just expire in a year. Someone could come along then and undo everything again.Barsoomian (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Johnsons-S1-DVD.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Johnsons-S1-DVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. TBSfan1223 (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ip Man

why did you undo the revision on the ip man article? 94.66.121.175 (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Because that was a DIRECT QUOTE from a review. You can't rewrite a quote. Barsoomian (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

i'm sorry.--94.66.121.175 (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Justified (TV series)

Sorry about "Frankfurt". I saw an "obvious" vandalism change by an IP user. Only problem was, they were right :-) RossPatterson (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Fleabag Monkeyface (TV series)

Hey Barsoomian - just a quick question - a Misplaced Pages user has either created or amended a page for an Impossible Pictures (actually Impossible Kids) show named Fleabag Monkeyface and are saying that it has been cancelled by CITV. I'm in the process of getting an official description to change to - but was wondering, given the changes with my edits earlier what the best strategy to use. The page states problems and the links generally don't work.

Impossiblepictures wiki (talk • contribs —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well for a start I renamed it to Fleabag Monkeyface.

And I deleted the dead links and the critical statements about the show. Just as you can't write how wonderful it is, neither can anyone just trash it unless they're quotes from reputable critics.

There's just about nothing left at the article now. It could quite easily be deleted if it isn't filled out soon.

You can add basic facts to the article yourself if you want, but please include sources to news articles or pages on a reputable site (e.g., yours, ITVs). As an involved party, your edits may be treated with suspicion, so if you get reverted, start a discussion on the article talk page. Just making the same edit over and over will get you blocked. The principle is not "truth", it's verifiability.

By the way, is Impossible going to make a statement about the future of "Primeval"? I'm assuming it's well and truly dead by now, but until it's said, we can't say so here. (I mean the UK show, not the Canadian spinoff.) 12:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm waiting for official copy which will highlight the popularity of the books it was based on etc.. With regards to a statement about Primeval. We are awaiting a decision by ITV and don't want to pre-empt anything.

Impossiblepictures wiki (talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Britain / United Kingdom

Not all of the edits I made were for United Kingdom. I also had at least two that I changed to Great Britain at the Olympics. I do take context into consideration. It's simply that I'm occasionally wrong. :) It happens. --User:Woohookitty 08:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't get too attached...

...to an article. Anyway, we happy few will keep the vandals in check. If you feel a bit better, just reread our protection policy. There really was no need to protect the article, and if 2 admins agree ;). Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. You evidently have more than I do. Barsoomian (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Primeval

What the hell are you talking about? Fan forum? You just delete everything without any search. The trailer is out. It's an evidence. You can see those creatures and you can see what they do. And the release date was announced about 3 days ago. But all right here's the link: http://www.bellmediapr.ca/space/ I think you are able to find the trailer by yourself. I have no idea why are you still here. Why nobody blocks you. You are the most irritating character in the whole Wiki. Destroyes everybody's work without any discussion. Okay, I admit that I didn't gave links or references, but that isn't mean that I'm wrong... I don't care, just do your stupid work. That's why I left Misplaced Pages. And that's why everybody will left Misplaced Pages soon. And that's why these pages are editeless about months now. I came back to write some useful information and you're here again. Nobody will edit these pages, because you always delete them. Useful or not. You just don't care. Congratulations! --194.38.118.222 (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

New World sourcing

The problem with the generic Bell Media PR link is that anytime there is a new press release the old information is completely written over, with no way to access an archive that I can find. The only way to sidestep that is to manually archive it, as happened with the first announcement; but that was not done this time it looks like. So the Bell PR release talking about the number of creatures created and the number of CGI shots per episode, as well as the first air date, is of no use to us in the article. I'm about to head off to work, but if you have time do you think you'll be able to hunt down alternative sources with that information? Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Old press releases are archived at . The one in question is now at Barsoomian (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that; all I could find was an archive that needed a password for access. I've updated the new link into the prose. All that's needed now in terms of sourcing to be fully up-to date is a reference for the Syfy broadcast and a replacement for the Facebook link. I'll try and hunt those down after work tonight or tomorrow morning.

Austin Powers

I doubt adding the link will cut down on "the idiots." It would most likely keep it going, since for the average "idiot" thinks because it has a IMDB article that it must be confirmed truth. They don't know that there are "idiots" over there that add stuff and IMDB is little more than a public wiki. That's why IMDB isn't considered a WP:RS. — raekyt 14:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching that article for some time and very frequently people find that IMDB page and excitedly add Austin Powers 4 on the strength of it. You can see it discussed on the Talk page going back to 2007. Of course I know that IMDB is not reliable; I've seen plenty of absurd crap there, and I have read WP:IMDB, which states that it is not reliable as a source of facts, but can be linked as an External reference. It is there not as a cite for the existence of the film, it's the opposite, to point out that an IMDB page doesn't prove the film exists, if you read the text following it. Barsoomian (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe... the edit I removed was there almost a month, and a similar edit on the Goldmember article that I removed which brought me here was there for quite a while too.. I have both pages in my watchlist now so I'll give another pair of eyes on it, hopefully that helps. — raekyt 15:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad for the help. I don't watch the Goldmember page. I have enough to try my patience ... I gave up on Mike Myers as basically 90% of edits were IP vandalism, yet protection was refused. Barsoomian (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Note on language

Hi Barsoomian, you've probably noticed me telling another editor here how important it is that everyone work together in a collegial way and read, understand and follow our policies and guidelines in order for us as a community to build this encyclopedia. The other editor has a habit of just ignoring advice and blanking their talk page, and carrying on with much the same behaviour. And that's fine for them if that's the way they want to go, it just makes the blocks get longer over time. But all the same things apply to you too - expecially when you're feeling provoked, you need to stay calm and courteous. So here are two examples you need to think about going forward: "finally you did something constructive" is a) unfair, as the editor has actually done quite a few constructive things, that's why they are still permitted to edit, and b) a pretty useless way IMO to start any discussion at all, unless you are hoping to get treated just as badly in response; and here you restore a thread onto a user talk page which the user had already removed. That is a definite no-no and can be blockable if it goes on (after you've been warned), if you want me to point out the policy links and explain, I can do so.

tl;dr version: Please don't go onto other user talk pages and pick fights, you will find very little admin support if you have problems in future with that same editor. Keep your own nose clean, I know it can be very difficult sometimes, but you need to do it as best you can. That way it's obvious to everyone where the real problem lies. Thanks & regards! Franamax (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I was actually being perfectly sincere when I said "finally you did something constructive". It was an olive branch, a compliment, if backhanded admittedly. I was acknowledging that the new image was an improvement, but it had come after a lot of unconstructive edits he had made on related pages. The reason I posted was not to needle him, but because he had not -- and still has not -- corrected the metadata of that image when he uploaded it. I'm not so saintly as to clean up his mess after all the hassles he's put me through. That was his responsibility. So I, in a non-accusatory (at first) way pointed the problem out. And he just said I was wrong in his edit comment while wiping his talk page. Finally after I persisted in informing him of this he simply deleted the metadata rather than make it correct. What was the correct course of action? If it was to 1) ignore the problem or 2) clean it up for him, I can't agree. (So I'm stiffnecked too.) And I really doubt no matter how obsequiously I had approached him that he would have reacted any other way, it seems his style, he never admits error. But I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, and he showed that doubt was entirely justified. I look forward to him being permanently banned in short order when he crosses someone who is more vindictive.

As for violating talk page etiquette, yes I'm guilty. I wouldn't do it again. Talking to him is like shouting down a well. But I didn't see any other way to communicate with him rather than making a formal complaint. It was also quite confusing to have edit conflicts (when he erased the page) in the middle of my revising edits, I was trying to get the text back to reword it, not just paste the same thing over and over. I'll note that he never directly told me not to post there, he just erases everything that anyone writes there, not just me. Putting a message on his page seems more like sending a text message than having a threaded discussion.

Thanks for the warning -- and that's also literal and sincere, to avoid any possible misunderstanding. Barsoomian (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Lintz

But so far, The Walking Dead is her highest notable production. The point of redirection is to redirect to something closly associated with the subject. Lintz is more associated with TWD. RAP (talk) 15:18 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I explained the policies that I think apply on your page and at the talk page of the article. If you don't want to do the work to make it a viable biography, then it should just be deleted. Madison Lintz isn't a Walking Dead character, she's an actress, she's had several roles. She shouldn't just be redirected to a TV show article where there is no information at all about Madison Lintz. And if you revert the PROD again I will just use WP:AfD. Barsoomian (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Mashup

I know you think you are helping, but... please stop editing until the 'inuse' template is removed. Your incremental edit interferes with the overhaul being done to the article. When the re-working is done, you will have ample opportunity to alter formatting. Thank you for your cooperation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The spacing error leapt out at me so I just fixed it, as it made the paragraph unreadable, before going on to look at rest of the page and saw the template. So, go ahead and finish without further interruption. Barsoomian (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting New World clips

Just thought I'd pass this along to you. It's the official New World YouTube, and has some neat clips on the effects sequences of various episodes. Thought you might enjoy some of them. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Blood & Chrome

I wrote all the episode descriptions and somehow didn't notice that I wasn't logged in when I posted them. Thank you so much for creating a section for them and cleaning them up. Much appreciated. Cheers!Helsabott (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Issue on the Clementine AFD

While you might right in the long run about Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Clementine (The Walking Dead), I am extremely concerned that you tossed the AFD up only 16 minutes up after article creation, and after only one edit. Yes, what was there needed sources and improvement, and at the end of the day, there may not be enough for notability, but rushing the AFD on something that is otherwise a BLP, a COI, or a hoax is a demonstration of bad faith. Per WP:NPP "Be hesitant to list articles on Misplaced Pages:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Users will often start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the following hours or days." --MASEM (t) 14:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I only looked at the article because it had been linked into Template:The Walking Dead. That's a declaration that it's ready for primetime. A lot of dubious stuff, non-existent articles, bad links, get linked into that navbox, so I look at new entries with some suspicion. If he wants time to develop it, fine. He can incubate it. But I see no possibility that the subject will ever be notable. But the longer it's there the more cruft it accumulates, and all the references added (all, every one, copied from the other character article) with one sentence mentioning "Clementine" don't change that. Tagging it for cleanup would be completely futile unless I made watching it a full time job, I see no likelihood it ever would ever improve. Anyway, I'm just one vote now and the cavalry has already been called in when Fudge canvassed 10 editors to "Please help by voting KEEP the Clementine (The Walking Dead) article". So don't accuse me of bad faith. I'm the one who's acting within the rules. Barsoomian (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• User:Barsoomian seems to be in breach of numerous guidelines and policies such as WP:BEFORE, WP:BITE, WP:DISRUPTION, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:OWN. As they seem defiant rather than contrite, they should be asked whether they will now moderate their behaviour. Warden (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Colonel Warden can make a complaint in a suitable venue if he thinks so. Barsoomian (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You're making assumptions that are all considered elements of bad faith; there is some content that we immediate remove - like BLP and COI, but when the content is of dubious notability but just recently created and otherwise doesn't immediately fail the CSD, slapping an AFD is poor practice. Yes, the article should have been created on the game page or a list of characters page, or incubated to start in the first place, that's likely what I would have done first or at least have a lot more sourcing than they did before posting to main space. But there's no requirement they start there, only a suggestion. Now if the article as it was when you tagged it remained that way for a few days without edits to improve, then sure, AFD makes sense. But there's no DEADLINE to remove material that otherwise does not legally harm WP, and we can give it time to build out even though it wasn't done in the most ideal fashion. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who is being attacked here and in the AFD for simply posting the notice. I did not delete the article. All you Clementine defenders have at least a week week to improve it before there is even a possibility of anything happening. Go for it. And you make a real article, it isn't a problem. I've looked at the recent "improvements" though and it still fails as far as I can see, full of in-universe and irrelevant detail. But it's not my decision, so get off my back. 03:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. As I said, maybe it should end up merged, or deleted, and that will bear out. What is very wrong is to AFD an article within 20 minutes of its creation where the article neither fails any CSD, nor is a BLP/COI issue, nor has anything that is obviously fraudulent or made up. I know there's no policy that says how long an article should have, and I fully agree about creating something like that in userspace first to avoid issues, but it is strongly discourage to target freshly made articles with AFD that otherwise have a potential to grow. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English