Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:37, 24 December 2017

From June 12, 2006 through May 25, 2015 I edited as SummerPhD. I then managed to lose my password and was unable to prove my identity as I had not updated my email address. Oops!

I then briefly edited as "Tefkasp" (for: The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD). No one understood.

Now I'm just SummerPhDv2.0. Same ornery Lesbian Space Pope_TM, new user name.

Incidents, accidents, hints, allegations and things left unsaid

1) Questions you ask here will be answered here.

2) Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things: ~~~~

3) This is no number 3.

4) I did not delete "your" page or block you. I am not an admin. (I may have suggested that the page should be deleted or that you should be blocked.)

4a) You do not have a First Amendment right to edit Misplaced Pages.

5) I don't care if you did hear it from your best friend that her next-door neighbor's cousin knows this guy who once dated someone who went to high school with a roadie for the band, we still need a reliable, verifiable source.

6) The blog/myspace/youtube/sign on a telephone pole you read is not a reliable, verifiable source.

7) You are free to assume I am stupid, lazy or "out to get you". We probably just disagree.

8) Personal attacks are a blockable offense. Sometimes the block is even enforced.

10) Try not to be a low to moderate level dick. If you must be offensive and/or boorish, please go for the gold.

Archives

/Archive 1/Archive 2/Archive 3/Archive4/Archive5/Archive6/Archive7/Archive8/Archive 9/Archive 10/Archive 11/Archive 12/Archive 13/Archive 14/Archive 15/Archive 16/Archive 17/Archive 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Berklee Alisa Edit

Thanks for the help...wasn't sure I should add the New York Times Bestseller bit, but decided to put it in anyway. Thanks for tidying it up. :-)

~usmarinesjz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmarinesjz (talk • contribs) 17:00, September 18, 2012‎

Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Binders full of women is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 07:41, June 29, 2013‎

Ancient astronauts

See Talk:Ancient astronauts#Nation of Islam - you may wish to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 13:04, July 5, 2013‎

talkback

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybec (talk • contribs) 01:06, October 16, 2013‎

Barbie Cancelled Film

Hey there, my friend! Thanks for editing the "Cancelled Film" in Barbie (film series). Anyway, I made some edits to make the sentences more clear. I hope you will not change it again. Thank you. :)

Here are some other page where you can find the trademark controversy of the Sleeping Beauty:

• The Sleeping Beauty (ballet)#Trademark controversy
• Aurora (Disney)#Trademark.

You can check them out and compare with the Barbie (film series) page. Thank you. :) Bianca Anne Martins (talk) 12:55 PM, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Rip Taylor

Thank you for the heads up about not filling out the edit feature on Rip Taylor's listing when I deleted a paragraph about Patty Duke and him on "Super Password". I just went back, removed the paragraph in question again, and filled out the edit feature as you advised. The reason I removed the paragraph in the first place was because I strongly felt when I read it that the incident described in the paragraph - which seemed to me to be the LONGEST paragraph in his biography - was of a truly minor, trivial incident that added absolutely nothing important or insightful about the individual's life. Genarians (talk)

Sockpuppet discussion invite

You are obviously aware of the frequent bad edits to the Walt Disney World Railroad article, but have you ever considered that the vast majority of those unregistered IP edits are being done by the same person? If you look up the geolocations for the ones that do those huge walls of edits all at once, they are all from the same town: Lexington, South Carolina. I opened up an investigation about it here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/174.107.173.231. Feel free to comment there when you have a moment. Jackdude101 (Talk) 6:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate your emphasis

…on verifiable sources, and the frankness and humour you bring regarding others' responses to you here. At the risk of "BingGD," I would suggest that no part of anyone's "privates", irrespective of gender/sex, should be seen as an acceptable term of insult or derision—as all such parts evolved/were put there for good reason. (I muster great restraint in not being more descriptive.) "A" words, "B" words, "C" words, "D" words, all should be beneath us. A good natured invitation to use a higher brow variation of your point no. 10. Cheers, Le Prof

Your awesome!

I love your work with Misplaced Pages those vandalizing little skunks are bullies and are rude! Your awesome Bro!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by ICANEDITKEWLSTUFF112 (talk • contribs) 09:31, July 13, 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request

Your name is being listed in this resolution. Better comply. Saiph121 (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've filed a new dispute resolution concerning the following disputed categories for the Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) article.

• Category:Feminist films
• Category:Films about narcissism
• Category:Films about bibliophilia
• Category:Witchcraft in film

You need to explain your motives in your opposition in the inclusion of these following categories, because in my own judgement these are considered as "DEFINING" in which you disagree with that notion and even disregarding the sources that have been provided in this categories to be proven and justified in its reasons to be including in which the current consensus that has been ruled is completely biased and prejudiced. Saiph121 (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is neither biased nor prejudiced. You just disagree with it.

I have tried to explain to you what "commonly and consistently" means. It seems you still do not understand. I'm sorry, I really can't help you understand. - SummerPhD 02:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm stating that notion that it's you that DO NOT UNDERSTAND the importance of these four categories within the film and yet on a record, the source that were being provided with "commonly and consistently" justification. Furthermore, I'm not disagreeing but rather proving the right action in including these categories and the consensus committed by yours and the others are completely biased and prejudiced. Yet I'm questioning another motive of yours whether you're acting like an administrator or not. Saiph121 (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project. When editors disagree, we try to find solutions that address the concerns while following Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. When that is not possible, a reasonable consensus resolves the issue. The recurring consensus is that several of the categories you have repeatedly added do not belong in the article.

This leaves you with several options. While I am neither an admin nor a psychic (I cannot directly limit your actions or tell the future), I've been here for over a decade and have a pretty good idea how things will turn out. Here's what I see as the possibilities:

1) You can continue to add the categories back to the article, despite the consensus. If you do so, you will be blocked from editing. The first block will likely be brief. Further blocks, if needed, will be longer. Eventually you will be indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages.

2) You can accept the consensus -- without liking it -- and move on. Maybe you've learned some things about collaboration and the limits of your understanding/English.

3) You can leave the English Misplaced Pages and edit in a language you are more comfortable with. There are close to 300 different Wikipedias. Each is independent of the others and the policies vary a bit from one to another. As you seem to stumble in English at times, you might do better in (I'm guessing) Cebuano, Spanish, Tagalog or any of the sister projects.

4) You can work to understand the guidelines better (in this case, WP:DEFINING) to try to understand why everyone disagrees with you. In doing so, you are likely to encounter fewer problems editing and can continue discussing the issue on the talk pages to build a new consensus to accept one or more of the categories you have suggested. Though the current consensus is clearly against your additions, consensus can change over time.

5) You can work to change the guidelines and policies. This is difficult, takes a lot of time and frankly probably won't work. That said, very few of Misplaced Pages's policies cannot be changed. The best way to start is likely at the Village Pump. Explaining what guideline/policy you feel should be changed, how it should be changed and -- most importantly -- why the change would improve the project is a good start. Again, this is intentionally a long, slow process. Don't expect a quick change.

6) You can leave Misplaced Pages.

7) You can start your own version of Misplaced Pages, using some or all of the software Misplaced Pages uses and copying some or all of the articles Misplaced Pages has. Change or eliminate policies and guidelines suit your needs. A lot of these projects go nowhere and quickly dry up. A few have dedicated followers. The basic instructions are available at . A few of the more successful spin offs (other than language versions) are Wookieepedia (all things Star Wars), Memory Alpha (Star Trek), Conservapedia (right wing/conservative Christian version of Misplaced Pages), RationalWiki (challenging pseudoscience and other bunk), Scholarpedia (content written by category experts), Deletionpedia (articles deleted from Misplaced Pages) and a number of others.

That's pretty much it. You might move from one approach to another and the outcomes might vary a bit, but that is pretty much what you can expect. The choice is yours to make. - SummerPhD 16:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Your suggestions and advice on leaving Misplaced Pages or even questioning my ability on English is very insulting and egregious. Still your actions in which you're acting like an administrator is completely put into question while denying much of the information by the others for own benefit. Like you and the others, the consensus you've made against the disputed categories that was supposed to be a part of the main article is biased and prejudiced and on the contrary, you're the ones who disagreed with it because what you've seen is "not defining" or whatever stupid term you'll have to prevent these categories from being included. Saiph121 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Leaving Misplaced Pages is one of your options, not my suggestion.

I am not questioning your "ability on English", I am pointing out that your problems with English might be making editing here harder. If you believe your English is accurate, you are mistaken. Had I received the above paragraph from one of my students, I would have returned it positively drowning in red ink. While multilingualism is a valuable and impressive skill, overestimating your abilities detracts from both.

If you feel I am inappropriately "acting like an administrator", I'd suggest you ask an administrator. You'll need to point out specific thing I have done that are restricted to administrators. Having been here for aver a decade, I am fairly confident that I have not overstepped my bounds.

I'm not sure what "benefit" you think I am gaining from removing the categories. My goal is the improve the project. Several editors feel the categories do not belong. That is neither "bias" nor "prejudice". We simply disagree with you. Defining, which you call a "stupid term", is explained at WP:CATDEF, one of Misplaced Pages's guidelines. A guideline is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". We are attempting to follow it. - SummerPhD 12:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Oleg Skripka

Look up "oleg skripka ghetto". It's also on his Russian Misplaced Pages article. Heepman1997 (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to add it to the article, you must cite an independent reliable source which directly supports your claim. - SummerPhD 03:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added one of the sources ru.wiki cited. Heepman1997 (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

DRN case closed

This message template was placed here by Nihlus, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Beauty and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Overcategorization". The case is now closed: consensus has been reached on the talk page. If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Nihlus 21:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Additional comments by volunteer: If further disagreements form where consensus is not achievable, feel free to refile.

Dispute on Feminism, Bibliophilia and Narcissism categories on beauty and the beast 2017 article

By declaring the categories on Feminism, Bibliophilia and Narcissism on beauty and the beast 2017 article as WP:NON-DEFINING, you are disregarding the importance of these categories to the film despite placing sources to prove and verify their qualities and presence to the film. If such preposterous removal of these categories keeps on happening, i might file an dispute resolution unless you stop removing these kind of categories and consider these categories to be accepted on the 2017 article, and i'm doing my work for what is right. Saiph121 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You are editing against a clear consensus. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing.

Films about narcissism is clearly a settled issue, having reached a clear consensus on the talk page, reaffirmed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Absolutely no one supports your opinion on this and a wide majority do not think it is defining.

Feminist films is a weaker consensus, affirmed through a limited discussion on the talk page and numerous reverts in the article (all reverting you, whether or not you were signed in at the time you added it or not). Nevertheless, the current consensus is to exclude it. Feel free to take the issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard, notifying the 5 editors who have reverted you or start a request for comment. Until a consensus to the contrary is established, the consensus to exclude it stands. - SummerPhD 00:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Then I might start filing an dispute resolution to tackle down these three disputed categories to challenge this disputed and biased consensus that is still currently standing. Again, I'm defending that notion that these are no "encyclopedia" work and the three are considered "DEFINING" in which the wide majority had a prejudiced and biased opinion. Saiph121 (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

At any rate, reporting a user to AIV over a content dispute is not appropriate. Editing against consensus is not (necessarily) vandalism. Please make sure reports to AIV are for clear vandalism. See also this discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, among several recent similar discussions, about the problems caused by over-reporting. GoldenRing (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Meh. I've gotten blocks passed before on clear cases of editing against consensus. It's a lot cleaner for a simple wake-up call than the whole AN/I mess. I'll file it tonight. Cheers. - SummerPhD 16:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Here to talk about the growth of Christianity

I did not take any sources of pew I only took the false ones if you actually visited the link its from a pro christian site that doesn't even show where it get's its information from and I left the links which were legit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LION786 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

What article(s) are you referring to? You apparently created this account after whatever edits you are talking about, so I have no way to figure out what you are talking about. - SummerPhD 19:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I only removed unreliable sources and I left the ones which were true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LION786 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edit at Christian population growth and your previous edits Seem to indicate you have some strong opinions regarding the subjects you are editing. As I noted on your talk page previously, removing sources without explanation, changing data without explanation, using deceptive edit summaries, etc. is not going to work here.

If you feel some sources are not reliable sources, you will need to explain why on the articles' talk pages. If you disagree with what reliable sources say, you will need to discuss the issue on the articles' talk pages. If you want to change material to fit your opinions, you will need to find something other than Misplaced Pages to do with your time. - SummerPhD 17:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Obnoxious sarcasm about bubblegum rock

Self-admitted obnoxious sarcasm related to bubblegum rock is not in keeping with Misplaced Pages guidelines.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) ...what would you prefer: the truth, or a flattering lie...?! ;) — fortunavelut luna 10:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It would seem you are having some difficulties with Misplaced Pages's guidelines, DarkOne. Once you figure it out, stop back and we'll chat. - SummerPhD 17:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

My deletion of your comment was on the *exact* same basis as your deletion of my comment. You even used the boilerplate "Please refrain from using talk pages...for general discussion of the topic". Yet this is exactly what you can be seen doing on the Talk:Stand (R.E.M. song) page. You're seen engaging in editorial commentary and extensive general discussion of the topic - part of which you yourself explicitly call "obnoxious sarcasm.." further explicitly stating it as your opinion. You go on to say how consensus and citations won't sway your opinion. How are your opinions cogent to Misplaced Pages? By all means, clarify for me how any of this isn't hypocrisy on your part. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

My comment, which you deleted because I challenged yours, suggested that we replace unsourced information with sourced information and suggested sources. Information from reliable sources is how Misplaced Pages is improved. Best possible outcome: Unsourced material in the article is replace with sourced info (not just "possible", it's what happened).

Your comments, removed by two editors, were rants about what you perceive to be bias in entirety of the project as exemplified in the consensus FAQ. Best possible outcome: The ranting about leftists and liberals draws more off-topic chat about fascists and racists removed before.

I am sorry to have hurt your feelings, but there is virtually nothing to be gained from further discussion here. If you would like to press the issue further, feel free to take the issue to whatever forum you feel is appropriate. Some of your options are listed at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. - SummerPhD 03:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Drop the honesty-challenged passive-aggressive rhetoric - you're not "sorry" about anything, you didn't "challenge" my comment you deleted it. You delete the comments of others on the basis of a standard you exempt yourself from. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please watch the personal attacks. As I mentioned, if you feel you need to discuss this further, you will need to find another venue. - SummerPhD 05:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

My recent edit.

If i may point out, the content i added did have a source, and i provided it. What occured was a formatting error Dr.Pietroczar (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean your edits at Anti-Defamation League, which I removed here with the edit summary "Not a reliable source."

Yes, of course David Duke disagrees with the ADL. Yes, he can point to various groups who, again, no surprise, disagree with the ADL. And yes, he can probably even point to some people and groups that aren't normally associated with hooded robes and swastikas who he says disagree with the ADL. In fact, some of them probably have disagreed with the ADL on various issues.

That said, he is not an independent reliable source. He has strong opinions on... oh, just about everyone. His summary of other's opinions and a token will get you on the bus. If you would lie to argue that David Duke and his ilk are reliable sources for anything, you will need to discuss the issue on the article's website. Good luck. - SummerPhD 02:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

I have continued the discussion on the Stand (R.E.M. song) article. Dpm12 (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Michelle Thomas

Hi there, I didnt add anything to Ms. Thomas' page. I did, however, omit redundant information that made no sense. "Age 30 (or 30 years old)" doesnt flow grammatically and is redundant. The same situation occurred with her date of death. I will fix these again and this time I will document the reason for the changes. Thanks.

Update: Strange. You said you changed it back to the way it was, but you actually added new information to replace the erroneous information that I deleted. Im not sure why I was even contacted. Mahalo.

Clarawolfe (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)ClarawolfeClarawolfe (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarawolfe: Your edit at Michelle Thomas removed a redundant statement and a source without an edit summary explaining why.

The changes you made were apparently trying to correct a portion of the mess created by the anonymous editor immediately before you who seems to have been trying to remove some of the conflicting sources re Thomas's birth/death dates and age. My revert was not just of your edit, but also of the preceding three edits. - SummerPhD 05:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0:

Noted.

Clarawolfe (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)ClarawolfeClarawolfe (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2

I'm pretty sure you're not going to violate 3RR (and you've already opened a talk page discussion), but sometimes people yell at me when I don't post edit warring warnings to everyone involved in a dispute. So, I guess please just keep an eye on your reverts at Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Noted. I can't decide if I should bother with an SPI. - SummerPhD 02:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't bother. I already checked with CU. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: December 2017

Per the AllMusic ref for the Jungle Rules album, Yeung says that there are "18 tracks of varied hip-hop". Those 18 tracks constitute the entire album, so he is in effect calling all of Jungle Rules hip hop. When Yeung calls all 18 tracks hip hop, that includes "Unforgettable". Alternative hip hop isn't mentioned anywhere, hence why I reverted it back to hip hop. Is this wrong? Maybe you need to look into the nature of the edit before you issue warnings like this? Theo (edits) 19:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You changed a genre the burden of demonstrating that the change is verifiable is yours. You can do that by either citing a reliable source for the material or establishing a consensus for the change on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD 21:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Why should I have to take it to the talk page when the source only uses the term "hip-hop", not alternative hip hop, the "user" (here , doesn't have an account) who made this change is guilty of original research. How did I do wrong by reverting it back to being strictly in line with source material? Theo (edits) 02:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the edit in question. It gives no explanation whatsoever for the change in an edit summary or on the talk page.

This is the warning for the change, saying that you had made another change to genres without discussion or sources. There was neither discussion nor sources.

Your first response was to delete the warning and say that a source in a different article doesn't support what you removed and obliquely supports what you added.

I responded that you changed the genre without discussion or sources.

You are now saying you were reverting it to what the source says and asking what you did wrong.

One last time: You made another change to genres without discussion or sources. There was neither discussion nor did you cite sources. On Misplaced Pages, other editors will review your changes. It is your job to demonstrate that the change is supported by sources and/or discussion. Editors reviewing your changes cannot be expected to guess that it is sourced in another article or that you were reverting someone else's change because you felt it was unsupported.

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. - SummerPhD 03:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SummerPhDv2.0. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Request

Can you keep an eye of Axel F, Who Do You Love Now?, Doctor Jones and Workaholic (song)? 183.171.181.68 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

A vague request from an anonymous source? Gee, yeah, let me get right on that. - SummerPhD 18:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I forgot my accont password

So that's why i created another account and i never used a bias approach so wiki uses weak articles that are made up by estimastions rather than acual sites such vice and pew sites which i left alone as they are legit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lion7861 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please help with Saiph121

User:Saiph121, a notoriously disruptive user, was banned for 48 hours just two days ago. Upon return, he has immediately begun being disruptive again, constantly jamming "produced" works into director navboxes without separating them into a separate "Produced" category or line in the box. This is not the usual Misplaced Pages format and it is unnecessary information in these navboxes. He also keeps adding director navboxes to films that they only produced, which is very confusing for most readers. I don't consider it good Misplaced Pages style. If produced works are to be included, then they should be in a different section in the navbox. --Nicholas0 (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)