ARCHIVE PAGE 7: SEPTEMBER 2008
You ripped off one of my user boxes??? I will fight you to the ends of the earth!!! Oh, wait... everything on wikipedia user pages is public domain. Never mind. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Who told you that? JzG? BlackKite? A BC apologist? -- Dragon695 ( talk) 21:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed,
I greatly appreciate (and am beginning to share) your thoughts here on AN/I tonight. Thank you for weighing in. I feel you're right, and I'm so tired of users citing NFCC policy while ignoring other, equally important policies seemingly on a whim. Anyway, just wanted to take the time to say thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
You could add subtle advertisement to the list of Wikipedia's woes. See for instance P._W._Bill_Bailey_III, an article which has survived on Wikipedia for more than a year; make sure to check its main editor too... VasileGaburici ( talk) 10:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ed, I find the manner in which you edited this article to be objectionable. Perhaps it would be better for you to actually open the article and it rather than use the undo button. For one thing, both times you have used the undo button, you have also reverted the italics I have inserted for the name of the film. I even made note of that in the edit summary.
This citation doesn't support the statement that it was a local box office success. Citing an IMDB page which says "Attendance 6,986,788" and no other business data doesn't clarify things. The film was released in six countries within in a three year period and one more six years after the first release. Does this attendance figure include all of those releases? How does a stark figure support the statement that it was a local box office success? The statement isn't supported. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed. Yes I'd noticed that. It would be best to change the name of the American side templates to Template:Americanfilmlist and redirect Americanfilms to American films for the base plate The Bald One White cat 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It should be sorted now The Bald One White cat 20:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Try to use American films though just to be "correct". If you splip though it will still show the same. I began adding them to the foot of articles earlier although there are at least 12,000 to do. I think we should get a bot to do it and start working on those year lists and getting them into shape. Any help you can give in filling them in would be welcome e.g American films of 1947 etc The Bald One White cat 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've removed that image again - I can see where you're coming from, but I can see no way that such an image can pass NFCC#1 (I think it'd struggle even if Beattie was dead). Its use in an article Park City (book) would be more worthy of a discussion, possibly... However, I have contacted two people who have images of Beattie that I found on flickr, so hopefully one of them will come back to me and release an image (I did suggest this courseof action to RedSpruce, but he couldn't be bothered, preferring instead to insult me). I'll get back to you when I get a reply. Black Kite 09:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
See [1] for an unrelated example of hyperediting. Basically a single user making dozens or even hundreds of edits consequentially, interspersed by others, which makes accountability almost impossible. Doing it in the context of building up an article for FA/GA is one thing, but doing it to evade scrutiny is a real issue, and one we've had with the user who is the subject of the AN/I. Orderinchaos 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate your work in reverting vandals. And i also understand your concern. But, for the record, I never blocked anyone for creating new talk pages by issuing warnings - and i would never do that. I agree that that would be inappropriate. But I didn't do it. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, could you please provide some evidence of the public domain status of this image? See WP:CSD I11, which states it may otherwise become a candidate for deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Initial reaction to my post on AN/I is not encouraging: I am accused of being a disappointment and of wikilawyering. (?) Prediction: Soon, someone will suggest that I should take a Wikibreak.
Oh, the cat ate the canary, and boy was Mom mad! I got grounded for a week because I didn't close the door on the cage after I cleaned it out. Oh well, I'll write again tomorrow.
erf
Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"( t / c) 07:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, oh! I know what comes now!! Somebody barges in, blames all parties equally, and tells everyone to chill out, without in any way addressing my concerns.
BTW, now the cat's dead, apparently from acute gastic distress after eating the canary. Mom blames me for that too. I'll probably never be ungrounded again!.
erf
Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"( t / c) 09:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about. Its just that I haven't been here too long. posted by User:Granpuff 21:55, 7 September 2008
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Boy Who Turned Yellow screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 09:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered,
Image:Age of Consent Mason.jpg, has been listed at
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the
image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at
the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
J Milburn (
talk) 09:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC) --
J Milburn (
talk)
09:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Battle of the River Plate Finch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 09:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Steamnboat Bill Jr poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 09:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Age of Consent Mason.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 09:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SBR03.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The image police are at work again! I got a message:
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SBR03.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:IFD here discussion pages of articles using the images in question should be notified of their potential deletion. It looks like you may have missed some of these. Jheald ( talk) 14:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, to set this straight, I doubt the "requirement" of giving notice to article talk pages for IfDs is valid at all. That claim was added on the IfD page unilaterally by a user who was frustrated with image deletions some weeks ago, but I'm not sure there ever was a strong consensus for it. It has certainly never become actual practice to treat it as a requirement rather than a recommendation, and since policy texts are supposed to be descriptive of actual practice and not prescriptive, I can't see it's worth much as long as everybody is ignoring it. I agree notifying article talk would in principle be a good idea (in fact, I think we should generally notify article pages instead of uploader talk pages, for various reasons), but as long as it means more work for me, I'm not gonna do it. I'll highly welcome it if somebody bribes the Twinkle developers to add the function. But image cleanup is tedious enough as is already; I'm not going to do yet more paper work manually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears that you've deleted Image:Ann Beattie.jpg, an image that's part of a dispute in which you're involved. I was wondering if you'd be willing to restore the image and allow a less-involved party to make the deletion decision? I want to emphasize that I don't believe your decision is necessarily incorrect, only that there seems to be a diversity of opinion which would suggest using the deletion process, or at least not deleting the image yourself. What do you think? -- SSB ohio 04:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you please consider modifying your signature? It's a bit long and non-breaking and that makes it slightly disruptive when it forces a page to be wider than normal just to accommodate your signature. This is occurring [ now on ANI] on my machine if you'd like to take a look to see what I'm talking about. Thanks! -- ElKevbo ( talk) 15:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Done Ed Fitzgerald ( talk) 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a hidden comment in the Dr. Stangelove article that it seems you inserted. I see a big white gap, why don't you want it removed? Maury ( talk) 11:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, without the spacing there, under Internet Explorer there's no gap at all, and the lede section butts right up against the table of contents, or the external links against the navboxes. Can you tell me what browser you're using? I'd like to check it out and see what you're seeing. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald ( talk) 21:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, please scroll to the bottom of the article talk page after altering articlehistory to see if the red error category is lit. [3] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see - apologies for removing it then - I'm using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.16, and it all looks fine with or without the space there for me (well, I personally though it looked a tad ugly with the space, which was why I removed it, as I do with most articles when I see excess space) ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed,
I am sorry that you became involved in the sockpuppetry/abuse issue concerning me that saw you repeatedly criticized over the past few weeks. There appears to be a large double standard with a few users who feel that some should have the right to abuse or slander with impunity.
I have put a full step-by-step summary of what has occurred on the ANI page [4] (inclusive of the early events that sparked the conflagration). I am not asking for your further involvement – I think its best that you stay removed from it. I am just letting you know to merely highlight that I have summarized all the events, so that can see the facts for yourself, rather than be persuaded by the slander that my accuser put on your talk page some time ago. They disingenuously call the evidence I have presented ranting, I see it as referring to (and assessing) all relevant information. I hope that you can see that it was not necessarily about the slander against me specifically, but the unsuitability editors who want to be policemen yet behave in this manner.
All the best,
Romaioi ( talk) 15:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Impressive work. Thank you. I will be studying the way you set this up as a future reference for my own improvements. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Could this image be a better one? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/tomasutpen/Album%202b/TheBoyWhoTurnedYellow.jpg -- SteveCrook ( talk) 16:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ed. I know that you will see this eventually but I thought I would drop you a note to make you aware that I started this thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Criterion_Collection_Essays at the filmprojects talk page. Collectonian has already replied with a thought that may be of some help. I am not very web savvy so I don't know how to check on his suggestion but I thought that you might know what to do so that is why I am leaving this note. I hope that you are well and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
When you think about it, it makes perfect sense, since the people who hang out at AN/I are, by and large, admins or their friends and hangers-on, and it's almost inevitable that, either consciously or without being at all aware of it, they are going to be biased in favor of other admins. When a civilian brings a complaint about an admin, there is a distinct tendency to reject it out of hand as sour grapes or a deliberate attack, and, to a large extent, the wagons get circled.
This is not to say that admins don't come in for their share of criticism on AN/I or AN, but almost invariably it comes from other adminis or those closely associated with them (maybe we should call them "neo-admins"). When this happens, it's then sometimes possible to insert a civilian grievance against that admin and have it be dealt with seriously, but even that is not assured.
Unfortunately, although I've observed this behavior, I haven't yet figured out what alternate methods are efficiacious in getting a grievance against an admin seriously considered. There's no umbudsman, Requests for Comments are virtually useless, and ArbCom will only take serious problems or those involving fairly well-known users. For the middling editor with a problem, there really doesn't seem to be anywhere to go for relief in the kind of instance you outlined.
I'm sorry to be so pessimistic, but that's how I see it. It's quite possible that the best thing to do is to swallow your pride, give up, and move on to something else - easy advice to give, but hard to follow through on yourself, as I well know! I don't know if Wikipedia can or will evolve an institution which gives the civilian editor a fair chance against an admin (I have my theory about why the basis for its foundation makes it hard for it to do so, but I won't do into them here), but I certainly don't see one existing at the present time. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken. What really bugged me about it was referring to a quote by the producer of the tv program for the purpose of pointing out that he didn't say anything about the rumor. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 22:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on Good Sports. I was wondering how long it might take for anyone to realize the article existed! I'll try to find some more sources. In the meantime, thanks. 842U ( talk) 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your addition of a large number of easter eggs to our article on Philip K. Dick. I don't think they added anything to the article, and, per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, I removed them. I'd be interested if you can point me to any consensus for using these lniks in this way, or if you can give a coherent justification for why you think using links like this improved the article. Thanks and best wishes, -- John ( talk) 17:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads-up! I've left a comment. Please let me know your thoughts. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I replied on 20yearold's page. I feel a bit strange having a conversation on someone else's page, but in this case, I want him to see my comments. Rossrs ( talk) 12:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I have the pleasure to inform you that we have now added extra top margin to the table of contents (when on article pages). That is, we have added 0.5em as the margin, that is half a character height, same as the infoboxes use. And we added it in the global MediaWiki:Monobook.css file so all users who use the default skin will see it. That means most logged in users and all IP users.
As far as I understand this idea kind of originated with you, then refined by Wknight94 who suggested it over at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Table of contents margin, and then we CSS coders over there refined the suggestion further and today we added it to MediaWiki:Monobook.css. If you want to see the change immediately you might need to bypass your browser cache, since the Wikipedia CSS files are cached in the browsers for up to 31 days. Thus it takes 31 days before all users see the change, but some will see it already today.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 01:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop "relocating" tags on articles to special "tags" sections at the bottom of the page. This is highly inappropriate. This violates the Wikipedia Manual of Style and all existing guidelines. Clean up tags go "at the top of the article—before other templates, disambiguation links, images, or infoboxes", not hidden away down at the bottom of articles. I've gone ahead and undone the instances I spotted, and am politely asking you to self-correct any other articles you have done this too. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 06:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Secondly, the problem with cleanup tags, such as the ones that you noticed that I had relocated, is that they are essentially internal memoranda from one editor to other editors regarding the one editor's evaluation of the state of the article. This is, of course, a worthwhile and helpful thing, but, unfortunately, placing the cleanup tags at the top of the page puts them directly in the way of the readers, the people we are supposed to be making this encyclopedia for. The readers, who have come here to get some information from a quick and (hopefully) reliable source, have no interest in knowing the information in those tags, those internal memos between editors. The analogy I've used before is of opening a printed encyclopedia, and finding it covered with post-it notes, each with messages about the writing and assembling of the article. While it might be fascinating in its own right, it most certainly would get in the way of retrieving the information you're looking for, and that, visually, is exactly what cleanup tags at the top of the page does to our readers, our customers.
Now, obviously, there are tags that provide information that would be of use to the reader, those which warn about POV and global scope, for instance, but the problem with these is that they are frequently abused, stuck on the article by one editor, with great frequency not supported by discussion on the talk page, as is required, and not removed from the page because of the general belief that it is not allowed to remove tags. So, by inertia alone, articles remained tagged many times even when there is not great consensus regarding those tags. In this way, they, too, are problematic.
So, I move tags from the top of the page because they are, in the purest sense, disruptive, not for editors, but for the users of the encyclopedia. In my opinion, these internal memoranda shouldn't be on the article page in the first place, they should be on the talk page, the place where editors talk to each other about the article. To increase visibility, an icon could be placed on the upper right corner of articles that have tags, which would alert editors that there are tags to be found on the talk page - or, perhaps tags should go on a new tab for them. There are a number of possibilities, but the one that is immediately available to us is to drop them to the bottom of the page, with a section header so that they show up in the ToC, and this is what I do.
Now, I don't expect you to agree with everything I've said here, but I hope you recognize that what I do isn't meant to harm Wikipedia in any way, it's meant to help improve it as a resource for the people we're supposed to be serving, and still preserve the functionality of the tags. If you have any thoughts of your own about how the system of tagging could be improved, different from my own, or perhaps modifications of my thoughts, I'd be very happy to hear them. If you an interest in hearing any more of my ideas on this subject, I would direct you here, and, on the same page, there are further thoughts about the distinction between guidelines and rule here.
Thanks again for making your thoughts known to me. Best, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The other primary argument made is that I'm editing against consensus, and that I ought to try to get consensus changed as a first step before attempting this kind of thing. To this, I would point out there are a number of ways to get consensus changed. One is a straight-forward frontal attack -- just go over the top and throw everything you've got against the fortified line of consensus. Well, I've tried that on a small scale and, like the generals of World War I, I learned that such attempts to shift deeply entrenched opinions in this manner are almost certainly doomed to failure. (I believe I learned the lesson a little faster then the generals did, though.) There are other ways to go about it which are less confrontational, and rely on persuasion-by-example instead of direct argumentation. I believe this is a primary reason that we have a rule like WP:IAR, to allow new ideas a chance to live long enough to put out roots and grow: the idea being that the more people see the new idea in action, the more people will accept it as a viable option. Of course, it also means that discussions such as this are inevitable, as people committed to the old order raise objections.
So, basically, my response is that the relocation of tags is well within the normal course of Wikipedia's mode of operation, is justified by the positive advantage to the reader, is not intended to disrupt but to improve Wikiepdia, and is allowable under one of our most basic principles.
I look forward to your comments and responses. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Treybien here with some of the responses you requested. First of all, I apologize about delinking the film years; I misunderstood the difference between a "film year" and "regular year" entry in terms of wikipedia policy. As far as your other complaints are considered, however, I must respectfully disagree: the "legitimate language" you cited was, in most cases, inappropriately flowery (see tone policies), and I would contend that the changing of such is a minor edit (although I would be willing to write something like "edited grammer" in the summary section). Treybien 16:33 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Ed, I have reverted your reverts on the punctuation of US in this article. I fully appreciate that in American English the abbreviation is U.S. and I always respect that in American articles. However, Zulu is an entirely British film and the article is written with British English spellings and punctuation. Along with the rest of the world we abbreviate it as US and will continue to do so until WP:MoS changes its conventions. I am sure the abbreviation will look odd to you, as will the spelling of many common words but I hope and trust you can relax and get used to it. 21stCenturyGreenstuff ( talk) 02:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to your list of instances where BE spellings have been used in the article, to establish that it has been written in that style. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Good Morning Ed, I am rested and alert at last. The post I sent that was lost in an edit conflict indeed pointed at the spelling of behaviour and honour. I had also spotted a few AE spellings such as realizing, organizes and criticizing that I have now corrected. I sort of take your point about a courtesy of acknowledging an abbreviation of U.S. although I have to point out that America stands alone here in the face of the whole of the rest of the world. If WP:MoS ever changes its guidelines I would fall in line instantly. MoS has several other guidelines that jar greatly with my linguistic sensibilities but I always follow them regardless.
Some of "your" American spelling differences make me laugh outloud at times and it must confuse the hell out of your school students when they come accross "proper" spelling in books and on the internet, although the "textspeak" generation on both sides of the pond probably don't even notice these days. If you and I could come back in 100 years I doubt if we would even recognise our shared language. Anyway I have a shed load of vandalisms on my watch list to attend to, I am sure we will bump into each other again on our travels. Cheers 21stCenturyGreenstuff ( talk) 14:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, here is a new "American" word I am struggling with - "Duphases". I cannot find it in any online encyclopedia but it is cropping up more and more frequently in teenage vandalisms and some online blogs. It is used in the sense of "idiots", particularly deprecated people in authority. My only guess is that it is an attempt by illiterate teenagers to spell the plural of "Doofus" but that would be pretty obscure, any other ideas? 21stCenturyGreenstuff ( talk) 18:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
On your other point, I think perhaps we've entered an era of variable spellings, similar to those periods in the past where the spelling of words was up for grabs and could, indeed, be different even within the same text written by the same person – and it's a phase we could be in for a suprisingly long period of time. On the one hand, you've got the polyglot melting pot of the Internet, where many varieties of English usage and spelling butt up against each other (including non-majoritarian styles from speakers of English as a second or third language), which has the effect of loosening things up, while working against that you have the effect of spell-checkers which tend to keep "high"-language (if I can use that term) on the straight and narrow. It could be that the end result of that might be a standarized world English spelling which is neither exactly American English nor British English, but something in-between.
Myself, I'm sort of toying with the idea that Wikipedia might want to adopt a different standard, that rather then some articles being AE and some BE, perhaps all articles should accept both spellings, with the changing of spellings from one variant to another being strictly prohibited. After all, I have no problem understanding "honour" or "realise" and I've sure you have no difficulty understanding "color" or "organize" when you come across them. There are some other vocabularly differences (lift/elevator, lorry/truck, flat/apartment) but, for the most part, I don't see these are problems either, and the more they are used, the more peple build up a context for them. I don't see any real compelling reason that there must be absolute consistency within an article, since there's no real comprehension problem getting in the way.
In any case, I've got no plans to edit war over US/U.S. -- and I'll point out that I've been known to use "US" myself in situations where space is a premium and the extra periods (full stops?, is that right in this context?) just get in the way. To be honest, I didn't actually realize that "US" was standard in non-American English, which is why I went and made the change. I'll try to be more flexible in the future. Best, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus to overlink articles this way. I have undone your changes. Please take it to either article talk or project talk. Thanks. -- John ( talk) 18:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
ARCHIVE PAGE 7: SEPTEMBER 2008
You ripped off one of my user boxes??? I will fight you to the ends of the earth!!! Oh, wait... everything on wikipedia user pages is public domain. Never mind. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Who told you that? JzG? BlackKite? A BC apologist? -- Dragon695 ( talk) 21:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed,
I greatly appreciate (and am beginning to share) your thoughts here on AN/I tonight. Thank you for weighing in. I feel you're right, and I'm so tired of users citing NFCC policy while ignoring other, equally important policies seemingly on a whim. Anyway, just wanted to take the time to say thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
You could add subtle advertisement to the list of Wikipedia's woes. See for instance P._W._Bill_Bailey_III, an article which has survived on Wikipedia for more than a year; make sure to check its main editor too... VasileGaburici ( talk) 10:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ed, I find the manner in which you edited this article to be objectionable. Perhaps it would be better for you to actually open the article and it rather than use the undo button. For one thing, both times you have used the undo button, you have also reverted the italics I have inserted for the name of the film. I even made note of that in the edit summary.
This citation doesn't support the statement that it was a local box office success. Citing an IMDB page which says "Attendance 6,986,788" and no other business data doesn't clarify things. The film was released in six countries within in a three year period and one more six years after the first release. Does this attendance figure include all of those releases? How does a stark figure support the statement that it was a local box office success? The statement isn't supported. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed. Yes I'd noticed that. It would be best to change the name of the American side templates to Template:Americanfilmlist and redirect Americanfilms to American films for the base plate The Bald One White cat 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It should be sorted now The Bald One White cat 20:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Try to use American films though just to be "correct". If you splip though it will still show the same. I began adding them to the foot of articles earlier although there are at least 12,000 to do. I think we should get a bot to do it and start working on those year lists and getting them into shape. Any help you can give in filling them in would be welcome e.g American films of 1947 etc The Bald One White cat 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've removed that image again - I can see where you're coming from, but I can see no way that such an image can pass NFCC#1 (I think it'd struggle even if Beattie was dead). Its use in an article Park City (book) would be more worthy of a discussion, possibly... However, I have contacted two people who have images of Beattie that I found on flickr, so hopefully one of them will come back to me and release an image (I did suggest this courseof action to RedSpruce, but he couldn't be bothered, preferring instead to insult me). I'll get back to you when I get a reply. Black Kite 09:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
See [1] for an unrelated example of hyperediting. Basically a single user making dozens or even hundreds of edits consequentially, interspersed by others, which makes accountability almost impossible. Doing it in the context of building up an article for FA/GA is one thing, but doing it to evade scrutiny is a real issue, and one we've had with the user who is the subject of the AN/I. Orderinchaos 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate your work in reverting vandals. And i also understand your concern. But, for the record, I never blocked anyone for creating new talk pages by issuing warnings - and i would never do that. I agree that that would be inappropriate. But I didn't do it. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, could you please provide some evidence of the public domain status of this image? See WP:CSD I11, which states it may otherwise become a candidate for deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Initial reaction to my post on AN/I is not encouraging: I am accused of being a disappointment and of wikilawyering. (?) Prediction: Soon, someone will suggest that I should take a Wikibreak.
Oh, the cat ate the canary, and boy was Mom mad! I got grounded for a week because I didn't close the door on the cage after I cleaned it out. Oh well, I'll write again tomorrow.
erf
Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"( t / c) 07:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, oh! I know what comes now!! Somebody barges in, blames all parties equally, and tells everyone to chill out, without in any way addressing my concerns.
BTW, now the cat's dead, apparently from acute gastic distress after eating the canary. Mom blames me for that too. I'll probably never be ungrounded again!.
erf
Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"( t / c) 09:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about. Its just that I haven't been here too long. posted by User:Granpuff 21:55, 7 September 2008
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Boy Who Turned Yellow screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 09:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered,
Image:Age of Consent Mason.jpg, has been listed at
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the
image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at
the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
J Milburn (
talk) 09:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC) --
J Milburn (
talk)
09:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Battle of the River Plate Finch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 09:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Steamnboat Bill Jr poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 09:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Age of Consent Mason.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 09:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SBR03.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The image police are at work again! I got a message:
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SBR03.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:IFD here discussion pages of articles using the images in question should be notified of their potential deletion. It looks like you may have missed some of these. Jheald ( talk) 14:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, to set this straight, I doubt the "requirement" of giving notice to article talk pages for IfDs is valid at all. That claim was added on the IfD page unilaterally by a user who was frustrated with image deletions some weeks ago, but I'm not sure there ever was a strong consensus for it. It has certainly never become actual practice to treat it as a requirement rather than a recommendation, and since policy texts are supposed to be descriptive of actual practice and not prescriptive, I can't see it's worth much as long as everybody is ignoring it. I agree notifying article talk would in principle be a good idea (in fact, I think we should generally notify article pages instead of uploader talk pages, for various reasons), but as long as it means more work for me, I'm not gonna do it. I'll highly welcome it if somebody bribes the Twinkle developers to add the function. But image cleanup is tedious enough as is already; I'm not going to do yet more paper work manually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears that you've deleted Image:Ann Beattie.jpg, an image that's part of a dispute in which you're involved. I was wondering if you'd be willing to restore the image and allow a less-involved party to make the deletion decision? I want to emphasize that I don't believe your decision is necessarily incorrect, only that there seems to be a diversity of opinion which would suggest using the deletion process, or at least not deleting the image yourself. What do you think? -- SSB ohio 04:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you please consider modifying your signature? It's a bit long and non-breaking and that makes it slightly disruptive when it forces a page to be wider than normal just to accommodate your signature. This is occurring [ now on ANI] on my machine if you'd like to take a look to see what I'm talking about. Thanks! -- ElKevbo ( talk) 15:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Done Ed Fitzgerald ( talk) 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a hidden comment in the Dr. Stangelove article that it seems you inserted. I see a big white gap, why don't you want it removed? Maury ( talk) 11:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, without the spacing there, under Internet Explorer there's no gap at all, and the lede section butts right up against the table of contents, or the external links against the navboxes. Can you tell me what browser you're using? I'd like to check it out and see what you're seeing. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald ( talk) 21:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, please scroll to the bottom of the article talk page after altering articlehistory to see if the red error category is lit. [3] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see - apologies for removing it then - I'm using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.16, and it all looks fine with or without the space there for me (well, I personally though it looked a tad ugly with the space, which was why I removed it, as I do with most articles when I see excess space) ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed,
I am sorry that you became involved in the sockpuppetry/abuse issue concerning me that saw you repeatedly criticized over the past few weeks. There appears to be a large double standard with a few users who feel that some should have the right to abuse or slander with impunity.
I have put a full step-by-step summary of what has occurred on the ANI page [4] (inclusive of the early events that sparked the conflagration). I am not asking for your further involvement – I think its best that you stay removed from it. I am just letting you know to merely highlight that I have summarized all the events, so that can see the facts for yourself, rather than be persuaded by the slander that my accuser put on your talk page some time ago. They disingenuously call the evidence I have presented ranting, I see it as referring to (and assessing) all relevant information. I hope that you can see that it was not necessarily about the slander against me specifically, but the unsuitability editors who want to be policemen yet behave in this manner.
All the best,
Romaioi ( talk) 15:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Impressive work. Thank you. I will be studying the way you set this up as a future reference for my own improvements. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Could this image be a better one? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/tomasutpen/Album%202b/TheBoyWhoTurnedYellow.jpg -- SteveCrook ( talk) 16:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ed. I know that you will see this eventually but I thought I would drop you a note to make you aware that I started this thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Criterion_Collection_Essays at the filmprojects talk page. Collectonian has already replied with a thought that may be of some help. I am not very web savvy so I don't know how to check on his suggestion but I thought that you might know what to do so that is why I am leaving this note. I hope that you are well and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
When you think about it, it makes perfect sense, since the people who hang out at AN/I are, by and large, admins or their friends and hangers-on, and it's almost inevitable that, either consciously or without being at all aware of it, they are going to be biased in favor of other admins. When a civilian brings a complaint about an admin, there is a distinct tendency to reject it out of hand as sour grapes or a deliberate attack, and, to a large extent, the wagons get circled.
This is not to say that admins don't come in for their share of criticism on AN/I or AN, but almost invariably it comes from other adminis or those closely associated with them (maybe we should call them "neo-admins"). When this happens, it's then sometimes possible to insert a civilian grievance against that admin and have it be dealt with seriously, but even that is not assured.
Unfortunately, although I've observed this behavior, I haven't yet figured out what alternate methods are efficiacious in getting a grievance against an admin seriously considered. There's no umbudsman, Requests for Comments are virtually useless, and ArbCom will only take serious problems or those involving fairly well-known users. For the middling editor with a problem, there really doesn't seem to be anywhere to go for relief in the kind of instance you outlined.
I'm sorry to be so pessimistic, but that's how I see it. It's quite possible that the best thing to do is to swallow your pride, give up, and move on to something else - easy advice to give, but hard to follow through on yourself, as I well know! I don't know if Wikipedia can or will evolve an institution which gives the civilian editor a fair chance against an admin (I have my theory about why the basis for its foundation makes it hard for it to do so, but I won't do into them here), but I certainly don't see one existing at the present time. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken. What really bugged me about it was referring to a quote by the producer of the tv program for the purpose of pointing out that he didn't say anything about the rumor. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 22:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on Good Sports. I was wondering how long it might take for anyone to realize the article existed! I'll try to find some more sources. In the meantime, thanks. 842U ( talk) 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your addition of a large number of easter eggs to our article on Philip K. Dick. I don't think they added anything to the article, and, per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, I removed them. I'd be interested if you can point me to any consensus for using these lniks in this way, or if you can give a coherent justification for why you think using links like this improved the article. Thanks and best wishes, -- John ( talk) 17:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads-up! I've left a comment. Please let me know your thoughts. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I replied on 20yearold's page. I feel a bit strange having a conversation on someone else's page, but in this case, I want him to see my comments. Rossrs ( talk) 12:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I have the pleasure to inform you that we have now added extra top margin to the table of contents (when on article pages). That is, we have added 0.5em as the margin, that is half a character height, same as the infoboxes use. And we added it in the global MediaWiki:Monobook.css file so all users who use the default skin will see it. That means most logged in users and all IP users.
As far as I understand this idea kind of originated with you, then refined by Wknight94 who suggested it over at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Table of contents margin, and then we CSS coders over there refined the suggestion further and today we added it to MediaWiki:Monobook.css. If you want to see the change immediately you might need to bypass your browser cache, since the Wikipedia CSS files are cached in the browsers for up to 31 days. Thus it takes 31 days before all users see the change, but some will see it already today.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 01:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop "relocating" tags on articles to special "tags" sections at the bottom of the page. This is highly inappropriate. This violates the Wikipedia Manual of Style and all existing guidelines. Clean up tags go "at the top of the article—before other templates, disambiguation links, images, or infoboxes", not hidden away down at the bottom of articles. I've gone ahead and undone the instances I spotted, and am politely asking you to self-correct any other articles you have done this too. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 06:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Secondly, the problem with cleanup tags, such as the ones that you noticed that I had relocated, is that they are essentially internal memoranda from one editor to other editors regarding the one editor's evaluation of the state of the article. This is, of course, a worthwhile and helpful thing, but, unfortunately, placing the cleanup tags at the top of the page puts them directly in the way of the readers, the people we are supposed to be making this encyclopedia for. The readers, who have come here to get some information from a quick and (hopefully) reliable source, have no interest in knowing the information in those tags, those internal memos between editors. The analogy I've used before is of opening a printed encyclopedia, and finding it covered with post-it notes, each with messages about the writing and assembling of the article. While it might be fascinating in its own right, it most certainly would get in the way of retrieving the information you're looking for, and that, visually, is exactly what cleanup tags at the top of the page does to our readers, our customers.
Now, obviously, there are tags that provide information that would be of use to the reader, those which warn about POV and global scope, for instance, but the problem with these is that they are frequently abused, stuck on the article by one editor, with great frequency not supported by discussion on the talk page, as is required, and not removed from the page because of the general belief that it is not allowed to remove tags. So, by inertia alone, articles remained tagged many times even when there is not great consensus regarding those tags. In this way, they, too, are problematic.
So, I move tags from the top of the page because they are, in the purest sense, disruptive, not for editors, but for the users of the encyclopedia. In my opinion, these internal memoranda shouldn't be on the article page in the first place, they should be on the talk page, the place where editors talk to each other about the article. To increase visibility, an icon could be placed on the upper right corner of articles that have tags, which would alert editors that there are tags to be found on the talk page - or, perhaps tags should go on a new tab for them. There are a number of possibilities, but the one that is immediately available to us is to drop them to the bottom of the page, with a section header so that they show up in the ToC, and this is what I do.
Now, I don't expect you to agree with everything I've said here, but I hope you recognize that what I do isn't meant to harm Wikipedia in any way, it's meant to help improve it as a resource for the people we're supposed to be serving, and still preserve the functionality of the tags. If you have any thoughts of your own about how the system of tagging could be improved, different from my own, or perhaps modifications of my thoughts, I'd be very happy to hear them. If you an interest in hearing any more of my ideas on this subject, I would direct you here, and, on the same page, there are further thoughts about the distinction between guidelines and rule here.
Thanks again for making your thoughts known to me. Best, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The other primary argument made is that I'm editing against consensus, and that I ought to try to get consensus changed as a first step before attempting this kind of thing. To this, I would point out there are a number of ways to get consensus changed. One is a straight-forward frontal attack -- just go over the top and throw everything you've got against the fortified line of consensus. Well, I've tried that on a small scale and, like the generals of World War I, I learned that such attempts to shift deeply entrenched opinions in this manner are almost certainly doomed to failure. (I believe I learned the lesson a little faster then the generals did, though.) There are other ways to go about it which are less confrontational, and rely on persuasion-by-example instead of direct argumentation. I believe this is a primary reason that we have a rule like WP:IAR, to allow new ideas a chance to live long enough to put out roots and grow: the idea being that the more people see the new idea in action, the more people will accept it as a viable option. Of course, it also means that discussions such as this are inevitable, as people committed to the old order raise objections.
So, basically, my response is that the relocation of tags is well within the normal course of Wikipedia's mode of operation, is justified by the positive advantage to the reader, is not intended to disrupt but to improve Wikiepdia, and is allowable under one of our most basic principles.
I look forward to your comments and responses. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Treybien here with some of the responses you requested. First of all, I apologize about delinking the film years; I misunderstood the difference between a "film year" and "regular year" entry in terms of wikipedia policy. As far as your other complaints are considered, however, I must respectfully disagree: the "legitimate language" you cited was, in most cases, inappropriately flowery (see tone policies), and I would contend that the changing of such is a minor edit (although I would be willing to write something like "edited grammer" in the summary section). Treybien 16:33 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Ed, I have reverted your reverts on the punctuation of US in this article. I fully appreciate that in American English the abbreviation is U.S. and I always respect that in American articles. However, Zulu is an entirely British film and the article is written with British English spellings and punctuation. Along with the rest of the world we abbreviate it as US and will continue to do so until WP:MoS changes its conventions. I am sure the abbreviation will look odd to you, as will the spelling of many common words but I hope and trust you can relax and get used to it. 21stCenturyGreenstuff ( talk) 02:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to your list of instances where BE spellings have been used in the article, to establish that it has been written in that style. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Good Morning Ed, I am rested and alert at last. The post I sent that was lost in an edit conflict indeed pointed at the spelling of behaviour and honour. I had also spotted a few AE spellings such as realizing, organizes and criticizing that I have now corrected. I sort of take your point about a courtesy of acknowledging an abbreviation of U.S. although I have to point out that America stands alone here in the face of the whole of the rest of the world. If WP:MoS ever changes its guidelines I would fall in line instantly. MoS has several other guidelines that jar greatly with my linguistic sensibilities but I always follow them regardless.
Some of "your" American spelling differences make me laugh outloud at times and it must confuse the hell out of your school students when they come accross "proper" spelling in books and on the internet, although the "textspeak" generation on both sides of the pond probably don't even notice these days. If you and I could come back in 100 years I doubt if we would even recognise our shared language. Anyway I have a shed load of vandalisms on my watch list to attend to, I am sure we will bump into each other again on our travels. Cheers 21stCenturyGreenstuff ( talk) 14:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, here is a new "American" word I am struggling with - "Duphases". I cannot find it in any online encyclopedia but it is cropping up more and more frequently in teenage vandalisms and some online blogs. It is used in the sense of "idiots", particularly deprecated people in authority. My only guess is that it is an attempt by illiterate teenagers to spell the plural of "Doofus" but that would be pretty obscure, any other ideas? 21stCenturyGreenstuff ( talk) 18:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
On your other point, I think perhaps we've entered an era of variable spellings, similar to those periods in the past where the spelling of words was up for grabs and could, indeed, be different even within the same text written by the same person – and it's a phase we could be in for a suprisingly long period of time. On the one hand, you've got the polyglot melting pot of the Internet, where many varieties of English usage and spelling butt up against each other (including non-majoritarian styles from speakers of English as a second or third language), which has the effect of loosening things up, while working against that you have the effect of spell-checkers which tend to keep "high"-language (if I can use that term) on the straight and narrow. It could be that the end result of that might be a standarized world English spelling which is neither exactly American English nor British English, but something in-between.
Myself, I'm sort of toying with the idea that Wikipedia might want to adopt a different standard, that rather then some articles being AE and some BE, perhaps all articles should accept both spellings, with the changing of spellings from one variant to another being strictly prohibited. After all, I have no problem understanding "honour" or "realise" and I've sure you have no difficulty understanding "color" or "organize" when you come across them. There are some other vocabularly differences (lift/elevator, lorry/truck, flat/apartment) but, for the most part, I don't see these are problems either, and the more they are used, the more peple build up a context for them. I don't see any real compelling reason that there must be absolute consistency within an article, since there's no real comprehension problem getting in the way.
In any case, I've got no plans to edit war over US/U.S. -- and I'll point out that I've been known to use "US" myself in situations where space is a premium and the extra periods (full stops?, is that right in this context?) just get in the way. To be honest, I didn't actually realize that "US" was standard in non-American English, which is why I went and made the change. I'll try to be more flexible in the future. Best, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus to overlink articles this way. I have undone your changes. Please take it to either article talk or project talk. Thanks. -- John ( talk) 18:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)