Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:37, 4 April 2015

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Tenchi Muyo! characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sapient (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Asgardian_appeal

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#BASC:_Asgardian_appeal. As you were involved in edit wars with Asgardian you may be interested in commenting. SilkTork 00:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind, as long as he only wants to contribute, and doesn't play manipulation games again. David A (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Chris Claremont photo

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the discussion on whether to include a 1990s photograph of Chris Claremont in his article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for participating. However, I think some clarification on your comment in order. Please see my response to your comment to see what I mean. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a photo in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Gold Digger Remix.jpg missing description details

• File:Gold Digger Remix.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

Mark Millar Infobox Photo

Hi. Can you offer your opinion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Rick Remender

Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo would be better for the Rebecca Housel Infobox in this discussion? If you are unable to, I understand; you don't have to reply to this message. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Photo Discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Video Game controversies

Hey Dave! I see we're both working on the video game controversies section and have some differing opinions about what would work best. I just wanted to reach out to you a bit, so that you didn't feel we were "edit warring" or what not. I am sure we may go back and forth a bit, but ultimately, perhaps, find some middle ground that works for everyone. As a first thing, I'm not sure that the section we've worked on necessarily needs it's own section, as it's not terribly different from the "scientific debate" section. Also some other areas need work and more balance (such as suggesting the Anderson study is valid, despite criticism...that's obviously an opinion...I'm not sure how useful it is to go back and forth with multiple scholars' opinions, but I suppose we can discuss that!) Thanx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.165.246 (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I moved things around a bit, see what you think. Also I wonder if the "dueling quotes" on the Anderson meta might be better served by just a line like "Scholars continue to contest the quality and meaningfulness of the Anderson meta" and then use the references to Huesmann and Grohol (the latter which I added)? Or we could even make it simply and just say "meta-analyses on this topic have historically disagreed" and cite everything, multiple metas and their critiques without getting into all the hen-pecking? That would tighten things up and readers could look up the original articles if they are inclined.

also I agree with yuo about articles on both sides gettign equal space. Even with my trims though I think the fMRI studies, Kirsh and Adachi all get more press, as it were. I think the previous edit by Myrtygroggins really tried to trim down descriptions of studies to 2-3 lines at most. PErhaps the fMRI studies deserve more attention, given the particular controversies attached to those (and I wonder if we ought to brign in controversies over fMRI research more generally). Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.165.246 (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have been naturally suspicious of you in the past due to wholesale cutting out relevant data and having no set identity on this place, while simultaneously sounding like a lawyer, but the current version seems to just be a reshuffling, so I have limited problems with it.

My concern has been that the valid con arguments have been given less space than the dismissive ones due to contributors more frequently having a vested interest in automatically clearing excessive gorn and the like of all harm, no matter how extensive the exposure, despite that even 30 second advertisements are well documented to have a profound indoctrinating effect on the brain (Making the frequent media reporting context of: "No effects whatsoever. Move along. Nothing to see here." seem suspicious and manipulated), so I prefer if the quote that other merited researchers agree with the data stays.

I also prefer useful, informative content to brief useless snippets. I would also prefer if more brain scanning research and specifics of Anderson's findings could be added at some point. David A (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well keep in mind, advertisements and fictional media are very different, and the outcomes we're discussing...switching from Coke to Pepsi, as opposed to engaging in aggressive acts, are very different. They need to be tested independently...assuming that two different media with two different outcomes should act the same is the "false equivalence" logical fallacy...I'm not trying to be critical, that point gets raised a lot. It's the same issue with "merited researcher"...Huesmann, for instance, gets a lot of criticism for overstating media effects (see Savage, 2004 for a lot of methodological criticisms of his work). We just come from two different views on the topic...I'm more suspicious of the "pro effects" argument, you're more suspicious of the "con effects" argument. That may make us "suspicious" of each other, as you say, but I think if we work together the result will be best balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.165.246 (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not against adding more fMRI data, or more talk of Anderson's studies...but keep in mind that would need to be balanced by more criticism of the fMRI work...and more criticism of Anderson's studies (of which there is plenty)...you might see, for instance, the new paper by Andrew Przybylski (2014, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) which specifically (in study 2 as I recall) fails to replicate one of Anderson's old studies. My main concern is that a lot of murky "he said/she said" will eat up a lot of space, while ending in the same place (opinions differ, the evidence isn't that good)...but I think you could also make an argument that more back and forth is more informative, perhaps? I think MyrtleGoggins (or whatever her name was) was trying to cut down some of that, but I suppose hers isn't the last word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.165.246 (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't believe that video games make people violent. I believe that sufficient amounts of wholesale indoctrination, combined from several sources such as all extremely murderous and moral nihilistic gorn media, and extremist Internet communities or ideological social groupings, in ridiculously large wholesale doses have a severe brainwashing effect on society as a whole, or rather humanity as a sum entity. Which is extremely dangerous, as a civilisation without empathy, compassion, or moral scruples quickly goes towards severe or even all-encompassing corruption, and blue collar crime, on all levels and respects of society in the long run, with no interest in the common wellbeing of their fellow sentients, a healthy society as a whole, or the long term destruction of the planet around them.

For actual physical violence, decent gun legislation, as was successfully installed in Australia, and lessened structural social injustices causing desperation leading to violent crime would probably be a good start.

As for the page itself, I don't have a problem with criticism. Censorship isn't what I am interested in. Just greater awareness, responsibility, and less misdirection about the topic. David A (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey David, just reaching out to you again, since we continue to have some disagreements over the content of the video game page. You've added statements by Anderson that are demonstrably false in the empirical record...that's fine, they are his statements and you can certainly add them, but I did mention to you that there would likely be counters. Also comments by the Australian government, which are both independent and come after the other exchange are likely very relevant. And I thought you were against removing/censoring relevant content.  :) One thing we may want to think about though is perhaps truncating the whole thing. Ulitimately it's juts one paper and obviously didn't end the debate one way or another. I think we're at risk of making this the "Anderson et al., 2010" page when there are a lot of opinions on both sides that might better deserve some of that space. Perhaps we should truncate the whole thing into just a sentence or two and cite everything on both sides and then move on? That way people can look up the relevant papers if they are interested without necessarily getting lost in all the back and forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.165.246 (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at that section again, thinking of what might work to truncate it. I wonder if one option to avoid all the back and forth would be to cite the origianl Anderson study, then the Grohol critique that was fairly recent. Keep each to 2 sentences. Then conclude with a line like. "The strengths and weaknesses of this study continue to be debated by both supporters and detractors" and cite the various other papers, but remove their quotes? I also changed the Australian review, so it's not necessarily commenting on Anderson specifically (although if you read the review it is, in fact, rather specifcially critical of Anderson at least on this score). Perhaps that would take it a bit out of the context of that particular debate. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.165.246 (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that we should truncate it, as this would attempt to shuffle it out of sight into obscurity. Anderson has made over 100 studies on the topic, and this was the one containing the greatest amount of participants. As for censorship, I thought that we had an agreement to balance the argument with an equal number of pro-/con- points, which is what I did, as previously Anderson's study was mentioned as a footnote, with the counter-accusations given greater room, and his study not even linked to. My version was more neutral than your own.

Also, one of the additions was redundant, as Ferguson's opinion was noted right previously (And considering that Anderson made over a 100 studies, of course he would merge the results into a collective unit. That's just common sense). And the other had an unreachable link reference, and seemed out of place cobbled together. You also moved Ferguson's mention of mentally ill kids not being affected (Which, given that if my entertainment is too extreme I get periods of intense paranoid psychosis, I can personally attest to that we are) to an inappropriate location. The entire edit seemed forced and clumsy and detracts from the coherence of the section.

In addition, I would like to remove or put a counter to Ferguson's accusation that all researchers who find negative effects are bribed, as it could much easier be used in reverse, as the video game industry certainly has more money, backers, and lobbyists than some parental groups.David A (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

David, I have to say with your recent edits, you seem to be removing a lot of content it seems you don't like. I do apologize if my link for Australia didn't work, but that is easily fixable and locatable, you didn't need to remove that, and it's quite relevant information. Is there not a bit of irony that you once accused me of removign information that I "did not like" but I tried to work with you on that...now you are removing verifyable content. Why not just help me with the appropriate link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.165.246 (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You removed a massive amount of actual research papers wholesale. I removed minor out of place redundant unreferenced comments to a manageable level after we had agreed to balance each side getting their say. That said, the Australian mention can stay if it is compressed, streamlined, and given an appropriate linked reference. David A (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree with your assessments, but no need for us to bicker. Ok, it's my limited editing skills that are killing that Australian report link. Here's the address for it: http://www.apa.org/divisions/div46/articles.html...on that page you'll see the link for the report is just a few down, Australian Government (2010). That's the link I'm trying to get in there. Perhaps you could help me with the edits? I'll try to fix it myself, but my tech skills can be limited...Thanx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.165.246 (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Got it to work, I think, the link that is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.165.246 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I streamlined it a bit. I'm much more interested in finding studies regarding how it affects empathy, ethics, and compassion anyway, as those are the genuine danger areas for all types of media. David A (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's gotten much better for the most part...I'm going to return the quote on funding though...that some studies have been funded by anti-media advocacy groups (see the fMRI criticism section) is pretty well documented and is the general incentive structure for this research IS one of the things being talked about in the field. (I didn't put the quote in there, for the record). Although I do agree with you that research being funded by the media industry would be equally problematic. We definitely see this issue differently...for instance even in the area yuo mention, I think there are a lot of "null" studies. Our edits will reflect that but we'll get there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.165.246 (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a massive difference between putting in specific possible cases such as the fMRI study, and generalising seemingly false grave accusations. That is not what Misplaced Pages is supposed to do. David A (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I think that the latest quote might have been too long. I'll probably have to write a summary instead. I'm feeling too tired and unfocused right now though. Also, somebody in California edited the article to read "David is lying" (which I have a much harder time doing than a regular person). What was that about? David A (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What you did looks good to me. I'm cool with that. No idea about the troll, but it's obviously just that. Don't worry about people who aren't trying to contribute positively. You and I might shake our fists at each other from time to time, but I think the article has benefited from us working together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.165.246 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking

Hi. In case you didn't already know, Asgardian has been unblocked. Just thought you should know. Nightscream (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I don't mind, as long as he behaves himself. David A (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton photo discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Video game controversies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Desensitization (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Video game controversies revert

Sorry, that may have come off as rude of me. The reason you gave in the edit summary for removing the line is invalid since it relies on your opinion, so I restored it and reworded it into comprehensible English, but I'm not saying that this study must be included. You and Myrtlegroggins and the IP editor seem to have a vision for the article so if there is a legitimate reason to remove the lines then please go ahead and remove it again (with explanation in the edit summary). -Thibbs (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I do believe that a non-researched opinion expressed in a study that does not concern a truly violent video game is not relevant to be included in an othervise mostly high-quality list, but if you know this to go against Misplaced Pages standards, I suppose that you were right to undo my edit. David A (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

OK well I just reverted the edit because your edit summary rationale seemed to be that you personally disagreed with the source's claim that the game as having some violent content. Obviously violence in games falls on a spectrum and I would agree with you that there are more violent games than that one, but there has to be a better rationale to remove a sourced claim than simply our personal disagreement with the reliable source. If there are quality-related problems with the source compared to other sources, then perhaps this should be raised as the rationale for its removal. -Thibbs (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it does only have an ESRB Teen rating (and if I remember correctly only awarded that due to references of tobacco and alcohol), so it isn't like I made up the fact myself, and in addition from what I remember from fact checking the research paper, it was an expressed opinion, not scientific fact within it, but I may have to recheck. David A (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Harem (genre)

Hello, I just revert your addition, sorry but, I don't think we (wikipedian) add forum discussion as external links or confirmed references for wikipedia articles, as you can see this only covers opinion of some people and may give a hint of conflict of interest, I hope you understand my reversion. Thank you.

Just for note you may see template documentation from template:ann (Template:Ann). As I also use the doc for VNDB (Visual novel database). We (as wikipedian) should not/don't use forums as references or forcing it for external links.--AldNon 08:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. David A (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Poor tagging on Multiverse (Fiction)

Hi David,

this is a notice that your speedy delete nomination for Multiverse (Fiction) was pretty bad. A7 reason does not apply as it is not about a person or organisation. G1 does not apply as it is not WP:Patent nonsense. Patent nonsense is more like this: "dfsajkgasdrtuierhghsfldguireahygsldif". It is not clearly a Hoax. However the A10 is appropriate. So please give one good reason to delete, not a bunch of wrong ones! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies. I haven't done this before. I will try to do better next time. David A (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So is there a way i can make it better because i was still editing..... BeyonderGod (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No. It was a nonsense article entirely made up from your own mind, without any references, valid logical foundation, or notability whatsoever. David A (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Beyonder

State by marvel that Pre-Retcon Beyonder had been equal to TOAA and that his powers was above even the living tribunal i have proof to show he has everything. BeyonderGod (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The OAA did not exist back then, and the Living Tribunal was only capable of blowing up stars at the time according to the handbooks. It was first several years later that it was upgraded/retconned to nigh omnipotence. Mixing different eras of retcons in a character analysis is illogical and does not work.

Even before his own retcon, the Beyonder was greatly weakened from destroying Death, the Puma in harmony with the universe was stated capable of killing him, he had to exert himself to fight the Molecule Man, and Rachel Summers as the Phoenix overloaded him to the point that he collapsed on the ground. Omnipotence means such supremacy that you aren't weakened or exerted from fighting or destroying any entity. There are contradictory claims in the comics regarding him being omnipotent or almost omnipotent, but in practice he displayed certain limitations.

In any case, this is a moot point, as the character seems to have been almost universally disliked by any creator other than Shooter, and as such the incarnation that you like was retconned into not existing any more, and nobody interested in bringing him back. The Beyonder evolved into Kosmos/Maker, and was killed off during the Annihilation crossover. The character is dead and buried. Please accept this and move on to other characters. David A (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin any more, so I'd suggest contacting an admin. Nightscream (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Is there somebody that you can recommend? David A (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

David A, do you disagree with this edit? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Only with the spelling and the statements that the Beyonder was fully omnipotent, as there are referenced examples of him showing certain limitations. My analysis is that he was almost omnipotent, as the other cosmic characters were much weaker before the retcon, but that he still displayed certain limitations on occasion. If he was fully omnipotent, he would not have been exerted or weakened by anything or anybody within the setting, much less have been able to lose parts or all of his power. Omnipotence is a relative concept. An infinitely powerful character that is omnipotent/absolutely supreme within one setting, might not be in another, and vice versa. David A (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The Living Tribunal

His page isn't correct as it's a contradiction as you said TOAA is the only Omnipotent,Omnipresent, and Omniscient beings and it was stated in the hand booka "He is nigh" in terms of omnipotence/omniscience but is full omnipresent so the undo was not needed. Beyonder (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod

I don't think that you checked out my edit. I changed it back to say that the Living Tribunal is nearly omnipotent. Only one supreme being can be omnipotent in each setting. And additionally has to be completely invincible and able to overcome all forces combined without effort. In addition, I actually like the Beyonder character fine, and have done so since I was small and first read the Secret Wars, but there are several contradictions to his supremacy, and that's an important distinction. David A (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Retcon=Omnipotent Cosmic Cube=Nigh-Omnipotent Kosmos=Nigh-Omnipotent Inhuman= ? Beyonder in his most earliest form was omnipotent as he made LT do nothing when he Wanted to kill death he is omnipotent showing he can warp reality and plus he changed the marvel stories atleast 2 times. Beyonder (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

As I have clearly outlined above, and linked to within the Beyonder page, there are several contradictions to him being absolutely supreme within his setting. That is all. I have great respect for the Beyonder, but there were several instances when he showed certain limitations, regardless of claims to the contrary. David A (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Kami Tenchi Isnt Omnipotent

"He has been stated outright to be as omnipotent compared to the creators of all reality as they are to ordinary beings. He is absolutely supreme within his setting. These are the requirements for omnipotence."''-David A.

Please show me the proof of this. No wikias Pure actual statement. Beyonder (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod

I already linked to the scans in the Talk page stating the Choushin's omnipotence compared to ordinary beings, and that the entire purpose of their existence was to search for the being that created and transcended them to the same comparative degree as they do to all the rest of existence, which they created. The argument is closed as far as I am concerned. David A (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The Beyonder

I would suggest you take such problems to an administrator. I'm not an administrator any more, and I cut my Misplaced Pages editing drastically earlier this year. When you do contact the admins, make sure you include specific diffs to illustrate the problem. Happy Holidays, David. Nightscream (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy holidays Nightscream. David A (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please cut back the length of the ANI thread. No one is going to want to read it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I will try to trim down the repetition. David A (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox photo discussion

Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I offered my viewpoint. Happy new year. David A (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, again. Thanks for participating in the photo discussion. I really appreciate it. One thing: A new photo has been uploaded and added to the discussion. I hope I'm not bothering you by asking if you would mind indicating whether this changes your viewpoint, or whether it remains unchanged? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have now updated my viewpoint. David A (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Salon/Alternet

Half of the "lies" have been debunked (i.e. Superdome story). They also focus on the real life person rather than the movie. Also note that your attribution that the author wrote "in" or "for" Salon is incorrect. He only wrote for Alternet and Salon disavows its content on the top of the article just as Misplaced Pages disavows it by reference. No one should cite Salon for that content just as Misplaced Pages should not be cited for that content. --DHeyward (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am not interested in the article itself, especially not if the writer is anti-semitic. I was deeply disturbed by reading the quotes presented within the article connected to a movie that idolises said individual. I think that it is extremely important that these types of truths come into the public awareness. If we could find some other article that makes the same citations this would be fine with me as well. David A (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Sniper (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Your recent editing history at American Sniper (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You personally reverted my edits, due to disagreeing with the additions. I made one revert, as I had one more relevant article to add. That is not an edit-war. David A (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with David A's behavior. He has followed policy and protocol in all his edits on the article and was fully cooperative, collaborative, friendly and patient in seeking consensus on the article talk page. IjonTichy (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

American Sniper (film) controversies

Regarding American Sniper (film) controversies, the controversies involve political, social, cultural, philosophical, moral, religious and other aspects of society. I don't have the time to combine or interweave the rich set of sources into a more 'coherent' story. Please see Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies as an example of a more coherent article. It would be great if you were willing and able to apply your talents to improve the sniper controversies article to fashion it into something better (perhaps in the style of Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies).

Here is a helpful comment from the talk page of Sniper: "One good way to condense the text would be to group individual critiques under similar themes, rather than chop up criticism into two sentence "paragraphs" that read like a play-by-play of every person's view, and become somewhat overwhelming to read. Something more balanced and easier to read might go "A number of critics cited inaccuracies or distortions in the film. For example, Joe Smith stated "..." Similarly, Sue Smith wrote "..."". The next paragraph might read "Reception from Arab and Islamic-majority countries was (harsh/mixed) " This is how an encyclopedia should read, and it takes a bit more editorial finesse than quote after quote, but it is better writing. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC) "

Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that while categorising the information according to topic sounds like an excellent idea, I don't know if I have a talent for structuring all of the information from all the critical articles that we found in such a manner, especially as my focus is splintered at the moment, and the criticism article seems to be set for deletion, partially due to comments from people who apparently agree with the movie's ideological themes, regardless of whether I insert and structure more information or not, which would make it a waste of my effort even if I succeeded. It might be better to start with fixing the parent article. David A (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In the deletion discussion, Erik provided some additional suggestions which I feel are helpful. You may want to take a look, if you have not already done so. Best regards, IjonTichy (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the most brilliantly insightful and deeply-penetrating criticisms of the film: Janet Weil, Gunman As Hero, Children As Targets, Iraq As Backdrop: A Review of ‘American Sniper’, published at Antiwar.com. Highly recommended. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello David A, just a forewarning. DHeyward will call your quotes as out of context because they disagree with his point of view, even if directly sourced. Put it back on to him to justify why the quotes don't belong instead of letting him try to dictate that you have to justify why they do belong. He war-edited with me on a simple sentence that was a direct quote on the Chris Kyle page (see the Tally talk section). My suggestion is to keep at it and try to enlist some other editors, DH seems to enjoy throwing elbows. 2601:2:4E00:C662:8C65:9C81:C206:2D31 (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

David, I'm almost certain other users are going to attempt to remove the unwieldy set of 9 links at the end of the 'controversies' section. (By the way the Max Blumenthal one is not needed, as Blumenthal is already quoted in the text of the 'controversies' section.) I suggest to quote from about five of these eight sources in the body of the section, which would leave only three links appended at the end of the section. You appear much more talented than I am at writing concisely, so I'll leave it to you. IjonTichy (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, given that this was a compromise due to the issues other users expressed over the length of the criticism section, I think that they would be even more tempted to remove the references if I started expanding on it. Currently it is half the length of the counter-quotes within the section. It is hard to argue that it is taking up too much space. David A (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Roy Scranton, who served in the US Army in Iraq from 2002-2006 (Archive of Opinion Articles by Roy Scranton at NYTimes.com) analyzed the film in the Los Angeles Review of Books, and criticized the political, historical, social, cultural, philosophical, moral, ethical, religious, ethnic and racial aspects of the film. He said the film stereotyped and objectified Iraqis. He further wrote: ... "The trauma hero myth also serves a scapegoat function, discharging national bloodguilt by substituting the victim of trauma, the soldier, for the victim of violence, the enemy." ... "Never mind the tired Vietnam-era trope of the bomb-wielding child, a fiction that ..." Source: The Trauma Hero: From Wilfred Owen to “Redeployment” and “American Sniper”, by Roy Scranton (January 25th, 2015), Los Angeles Review of Books.   IjonTichy (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

David thanks for all your efforts on Misplaced Pages in general and this film article in particular. I support your tireless efforts to reach compromise on the article talk page. However, I'm wondering why it was decided not to include the Los Angeles Review of Books among the sources cited in the Controversies section (until I tried to include it in the Controversies section a few hours ago). Yes, the LARB source does not focus exclusively on the film (the LARB source also studies other artistic works in addition to the 'Sniper' film), but that's not a good reason to completely ignore the source - it does a great job deeply analyzing key aspects of the film, as you would expect from a high quality scholarly source such as the LARB. --IjonTichy (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Simply due to the fact that it takes considerable effort to read through and make extremely compressed succinct summaries I am afraid. I had already done so with the articles present at the Talk page when I started. I could always add it as an end reference, but I have splintered focus at the moment, and don't know if I have the energy to read and summarise it right now. David A (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks David. How about this summary: Roy Scranton, who served in the US Army in Iraq, wrote the film portrays the Iraqi people as caricatures, savages, villains and kill targets, and that the film "obviates the questions of why any American soldiers were in Iraq, why they stayed there for eight years, why they had to kill thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians..."

References

1. Archive of Opinion Articles by Roy Scranton at NYTimes.com
2. The Trauma Hero: From Wilfred Owen to “Redeployment” and “American Sniper”, by Roy Scranton (January 25th, 2015), Los Angeles Review of Books

Damion Scott Infobox photo discussion

Hi. Damion Scott has taken issue with the photo in his article. He previously demanded that I replace it with one that I thought inferior to the one already in the Infobox, and has now replaced with a third one of his own. In the interest of WP:CONSENSUS, can you offer your opinion on this? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

For what little it is worth, I have offered my two cents on the issue. David A (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Notices

Maybe you are not aware but its common courtesy to inform an editor if you're complaining about them on a noticeboard...thanks.--MONGO 06:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to do so yet. David A (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No time to or no plan to...just post your opinions at a public noticeboard and not have the courtesy to inform those you're complaining about?--MONGO 06:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I had to switch from the notepad to a computer, and am not very swift in things that I do. I was planning to inform you. David A (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

David, please note that DRN makes suggestions/ recommendations but they don't make binding decisions. Editors are not forced to adhere to the outcome of DRN discussions; the decision whether to adhere is voluntary. In the past I have seen cases where editors have chosen to ignore the outcome of DRN discussions, and WP policies do not call for sanctions against these editors. If the outcome of the DRN discussion will be favorable to DHeyward and mongo, they will adopt the outcome. But if they will perceive the outcome as unfavorable, they are highly likely to simply ignore it, and continue on insisting that practically almost all of the most powerful political/ social/ historical criticism of the film be removed from the film article (they may allow some of the mildest, weakest criticism to appear in the film article). The criticism clashes with their world-view/ ideology and causes them severe cognitive dissonance and they are not likely to allow the film article to have a 'Commentary' or 'Response' section with a significant number and length of citations from sources that issue powerful, or even semi-powerful, criticism of the political/ historical/ social aspects of the film. As you have seen on the AN/I, this film article is not the first time DH, mongo (and many other people that believe in the same or very similar ideology) have edited disruptively and tendentiously on political/ social/ historical articles. They have done this before and are experts at stonewalling. They, and their many knee-jerk supporters e.g. Earl King etc, are not as open to compromise as you and I are. IjonTichy (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I just think that the criticism should be allowed some minor room within the article. I don't wish to remove any of the positive responses or defense of the movie. David A (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously

They wasn't talking about universes in the crossover even in the handbook it states "The living tribunal also helped fashion the twin cosmic entities the brothers each of whom became the guardian of a different Megaverse,within the larger omniverse but encompassing more than a single multiverse." They wasn't saying universe in literal terms.

Also omniverse in marvel DOESNT mean all the known fictional communities it means all the realities,universes,multiverse within the marvelverse. Beyonder (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod

Only the regular Marvel and DC universes were featured within the crossover, but all right, we could change it to multiverses. However, Mark Gruenwald, who came up with the term, and Marvel itself does in fact define an omniverse as the sum totality of all reality and fiction, as you can check on the Marvel wiki. So unless you are afraid of Galactus suddenly showing up to eat this planet that we live on, the Living Tribunal has no authority over the omniverse. Also, it was revealed in New Avengers 30 that the Living Tribunal was the embodiment of the Marvel Multiverse. David A (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Antvasima wikipedias aren't always 100% reliable if you read the link they didn't explain that they meant they have RL events,characters, and etc within there fiction work and if the living tribunal was the embodiment of the marvel multiverse......why isnt it destroyed? as we seen the beyonders by far wanted to rid LT because he was the main being keeping the hierarchy in order and keeping the balance as we seen multiple times without him they can do whatever they want. Beyonder (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod

The Marvel Multiverse is almost destroyed. It is like a corpse after the conscious mind has died. There are still bacteria living inside of it. The Living Tribunal was officially stated to be the embodiment of the Marvel Multiverse. That is Marvel's current policy on the issue. Also, as far as I know, that Marvel wiki page is quoted from the handbook.

Btw: Sean, I just noticed that you wrote a 9 page thread to bash me over at Moviecodec. I thought that we had agreed not to talk badly about each other in public any more? I have stuck to that deal. Why haven't you? David A (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Source

Its from the 1st Secret Wars I believe. Beyonder (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod

Can you try to find the issue number? If you do, I will insert the reference properly into the article. David A (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

this was by Al Milgrom and this is all I got and it's from secret wars 2 my mistake. Beyonder (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod

Hmm. We need to find the issue number. Was this from an issue of Marvel Age perhaps? (An old in-house Marvel Comics interview magazine) Could you ask whover gave the scan to you where he or she found it? David A (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice

I have reported you here. Thread Beyonder (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod

I'm also getting tired.

Want to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard and get another opinion? Quite frankly, I am tired of BeyonderGod and his malformed additions to the article, because however much he's trying to help something's not working. I don't know how long and on how many topics you two have been fighting, but it's exhausting to explain what's wrong with the constant additions when he can't even seem to use a comma in a list right or structure a sentence properly. Sorry; I'm a bit off topic, but--WP:DRN? Origamite 02:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I have been trying to reason with him for 8 months, starting on Wikia, from which he was eventually permanently banned by staff for consistent offensive and unreasonable trolling, including uploading several long homophobic slur insults on several other people's user pages, widespread systematic lying about founding the "Outskirts Battledome" internet community, which he had nothing to do with, massive edit-warring with entire wikia communities, and writing a guide in how to efficiently troll people. I have heard that he has also been banned from several other communities. Given his history of unreasonably consistently attacking me with slurs and lies, I don't think that it is possible to reason with him. For example, he stubbornly refuses to understand how spatial dimensions work, and that this is not the same thing as when "dimension" is used for "pocket universe". David A (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I take that as a "yes"? Could you link to some of these off-Misplaced Pages discussions and communities? I'd like to know just how deep the rabbit-hole goes. I really do hope he might stop this with dispute resolution. Origamite 04:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Origamite: Well, Wiki staff deleted his various wikis due to them either plagiarising the copyrighted name of another community, containing said long homophobic slurs, or the guide to trolling, but you can check with the staff member "SemanticDrifter", if you wish for confirmation. He also wrote a new guide here, and another about how to get emotional reactions out of people here. In addition, after he returned after his global ban to troll the "VsBattles" wiki, where I am an admin, over hundreds of IP posts, I deleted most of them, and I requested to Urban Dictionary that they should remove his homophobic slurs about me there. However, here is a somewhat clumsy description with links that I did earlier on wikipedia. Also, here is a lying insulting attack thread that he made about me together with an apparent sockpuppet (or at least the member only had 57 posts in total, and hasn't posted anything since) after I thought that we had came to an agreement on this site to leave each other alone/not mention each other at all outside of Misplaced Pages, which I had upheld. Here are links to various communities from which he has been banned. And here is a thread that he made in which he is shown as completely flippant and unrepentant about it. Blaming the consequences of his behaviour on everybody else. David A (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm also getting tired.

Attempting to whitewash the Ku Klux Klan and validate supremacist propaganda is not acceptable guys. Come on guys. Masturbating to anime porn is totally acceptable though. Man, don't you hate it when people actually challenge your point of view?