User talk:Arcayne/Archive 2: CoM edits & Learning Curve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The Oddest Message

During my 8-hour block for 3rr, I received the following email:

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:29:46 +0000 (GMT) From: "Maurice Frank" <megaknee@btopenworld.com> Subject: how wikipedia really works I follow Unblock-en-l and your case appeared in it, hi. Anyone who belongs to the dominant block of opinion on any subject can get anyone else blocked. Wikipedia has no policies, applied consistently.

All the admins who talk on Wiki-en-l (Unblock-en-l was set up separately from it summer 2006) openly admit counting any shred of personal fairness as mattering less than developing Wikipedia as they wish. Blocking of only 1 side when 2 sides have done exactly the same thing that the block is supposed to have been for, is routine. It's what happened to me, and claiming to have any rights against a biased 2-day block actually was the offence that got me permablocked, after only 5 weeks' membership. Look at all these:

a voice from within Wikipedia's own system describes how the ArbCom and dispute resolution systems are rigged with discretionary catch-alls that always enable admin to win http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/024230.html on how force of group numbers dictates Wikipedia pages's content [1] this is actually called "don't bother reporting abusive admins" [2]

I was wary of how the umpiring of pages the whole world can fight over could possibly work well, but I was drawn into Wikipedia by a friend who was briefly (and no longer is, already!) having good experiences with sharing his medical concerns on a couple of pages on medical subjects. My Wiki name was Tern, and here are 2 administrators saying to me [3] [4] saying "You are not entitled to anything" and "Wikipedia is not a democracy."

On the nature of Wikipedia: [5] [6] tag "Wikipedia"

another recipient of this message contributed: Being unfairly branded a target in the midst of Arbitration, with the Committee turning a blind eye, [7] [8]

and a former admin, leaving Wikipedia on 6 Oct 06: [9] " Too many admins whose first course is to insult a new user in order to see if they get a "reaction" so that they can spank the new user for talking back to an admin. I've seen too many admins block accounts for infinite duration on flimsy evidence or mere whim.

I've seen more accusations thrown around of someone being a "sockpuppet" of another user. Time and again, I looked through the edits, and I didn't see it. Instead, what I saw were users who were systematically hounded until they finally broke down and broke the civility rules, and then as an afterthought someone came up and said "oh, it doesn't matter, they were a sockpuppet of X anyways", thereby removing all culpability on the part of the abusive users who had spent time hounding and abusing the newbie...

The Wiki is broken. ... We, the admins of wikipedia, broke it. We broke it by being stuck-up jerks. We broke it by thinking we are better than normal editors, by getting full of ourselves. "

[10] [11] We're actually developing a reputation as a place of arrogance and nastiness, a place of heavy-handed thugishness, a place where people treat each other quite badly. That's bad for the project.

In a case concerning an argument about Crusades history, [(http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/unblock-en-l/2007-January/002824.html] if you can access Unblock-en-l archives) where an editor concerned about historical record came up against some strong religious feelings in favour of the Crusades' and was blocked, she has asked me to add her story to this information. "It shocks me that there are still people out there who are so ignorant and closed minded - they don't know the meaning of logic - yet it is they who write the Wikipedia encyclopedia: ironic." From her first message to Unblock-en-l, 19 Jan 2007:

" My account name is Agnes Nitt, I was blocked by Adam Bishop who banned me for this reason: troll. I will copy and paste the details: Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Adam Bishop for the following reason (see our blocking policy): troll. On the discussion page of Crusades, after I was banned, he put this just after my debate: Agnes has been blocked, because I am impatient and she *** me off. Adam Bishop 00:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC) As is quite evident from the reason why I was blocked, and his rude comment afterwards, it is clear that I have had misjustice done against me. I didn't expect administrators to be so childish, and unacademic, I mean, just because someone was having a debate with me on the discussions page and I had been proving them wrong, so an admin comes along, disagrees with me, cant counter my argument, and therefore blocks me from editing, and to crown it all, he leaves an abusive message against me and ridicules me (out of context from the debate-he should know that this isn't a regular chat room, where he can poke fun at me, but a discussion page confined to the Crusades and related topics) Just because he knows I cant reply. I broke no rules, I wasn't vandalising, nor was I threatening, and I was banned for no reason (other than troll) except that I have different views. "

She closed "I believe I have put my case in trusted hands, and I hope you reply to me concerning this as soon as possible, as I can no longer engage in any debate." But was told "Please assume good faith regarding Adam Bishop's actions. He may have been overreacting, but is a generally respected administrator. " "I understand your point of view Herbert, but trust me, some people are brilliant and funny and nice etc, but when it comes to certain topics they become different people, ... And what I am saying is true, this whole idea that the crusaders were not too bad is myth, and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, it's heavily Point Of View, " (you may know of Wikipedia's policy "no points of view"?)

A send-up by "Something Awful" of the aggressive tone common on talk pages, that creates these situations: [12]

Messages of support: "some of the people on there do seem pretty sarcastic and bullying .... some of the right-wingers on there seem to think mentioning anything negative but factual about Reagan or Bush constitutes bias and there do seem to be some nasty characters on there." - from Aspievision, [13]

"You are not the only one who has had problems with Wikipedia taking sides in a dispute, and being blatantly unfair to the other side without even giving them a chance to defend themselves." from FAMSecretSociety, a Yahoo group "Yes ... this is my opinion of Wikipedia. It suppresses anything that may be considered 'more than marginally controversial'. It's definitely in the same boat as the mainstream media without any shadow of a doubt. " - the forum of the British anti-ID cards site [14]

" of late I've noticed that some independent contributions have been either radically edited or censored. I've not had time to check articles on 9/11, the London Bombings, the assault on Falluja etc, but judging from the way content was edited promptly out of articles on SSRIs, schizophrenia and Asperger's, there definitely seem to be operatives in place ready to clamp down on anything that may cast doubt on establishment canards." from Medialens, [15]

[edit] Answers to questions

First of all, it seems that the above message that you received was someone expressing disgust about how Wikipedia is run. You saw this on a lesser scale with Agent Cooper, who contesting the poor application of the NPOV policy on Wikipedia. I've seen a couple of these soapbox lectures myself, but I don't pay them much attention. I don't consider Wikipedia to be earth-shaking; it's not the end of the world if an article can't seem to adhere to all the policies. You can interpret these messages however you please.

I interpret it as the rantings of someone who is in desperate need of a hobby away from the computer.
I agree. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, you have the right to blank or archive your own talk page, although I'm not sure about warnings. Maybe they could be archived after a period of time, but if you receive a template warning and remove it from the talk page, that would be a sign that you're trying to hide something. I think, though, that when editors build up their edits, then generally, they wouldn't receive template warnings but instead a personalized message from the contesting editor. I like to let my talk page get a little long in the tooth before I archive anything; saves me a step in having to click into archives and just review the past month's discussion with other editors.

So, if I am reading you correctly, it is better to archive than to blank (even though it is okay to do so). The instance I refer to can be found here here.
I think it's a personal opinion regarding what to do with messages left, but I think it's easier to archive old messages rather than dig through history to find a specific old message. Also, for the linking, you don't have to do a forward-slash. Some URLs have them at the end, some don't. And if you want to link to Mikkalai's talk page, you would type [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikkalai here]. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a page-within-page link. Do you mean something like this? All you have to do (I'm using special code to show the implemented code now, check the underlying edit) is type [http://en.wikipedia.org/ this]. You can interchange the URL for anything on or off Wikipedia. If this is not what you mean, please clarify. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly what I was talking about (I noted the froward-slash and the additional space denoting the visible word in the text - sweet!). Thanks. How to specify a specific link to a post or header within an article (ie, posting a link to a conversation within a header, or a single post from an article).? As well, what are barnstars, and how are they earned?Arcayne 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You can target a link to a specific section of a page by typing # and identifying the section title after it. For example, User talk:Erikster#A Few Admin-Type Questions. You can pipe the link as well if you wanted to. Also, barnstars are just informal awards that can be given to other editors. I've never gotten one myself; some editors have 'em up the wazoo. Depends on the kind of editors you work with, I guess. The kind I collaborate with don't really swap barnstars. Check out WP:BARNSTAR. Keep the questions coming if you got 'em; anything to keep me from reading finance homework. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The application of images, particularly in film articles, can be subjective. However, WP:FU indicates, "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." While the image isn't serving a purely decorative purpose, it does not contribute significantly to the article, as it's just tied into a single sentence. When you use copyrighted images, you need to write a fair use rationale justifying its usage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Which I did, upon uplaoding the image. Tell you what; let me send the images to you via email, and you can tell me what you think. Deal?Arcayne 06:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way: If you need to convince me, then it's possible that others need to be convinced on the particular model of the rifle. That's the point I was trying to make regarding verifiability. Something doesn't have to be subjective in nature for it to be questionable. I've revised film articles where I found that previously added information were merely rumors that were presented as fact, such as so-and-so being considered for the role. The uneducated eye can't tell fact from rumor without citation. That's why I'm advocating the backing of even minor details with references. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that present us with the original argument that the article is too long? It was a concern. I offered to send the pictures to you so as to put to rest the - and pardon me for saying so - ridiculous idea that the trivia points are somehow biased or skewed. They are plain observations, and not subjective analyses as to Theo's slumping meaning death or whatever. That particular argument arose out of the ambiguity of the scene. There is no argument as to the existence of a prop. It is either one thing, or it is not, and the word 'uprising' or 'intifada' on a wall, while open to interpretation (and note that a value judgment or backstory as to why it was there was not explored), cannot be questioned as to its veracity. It is, as you say the observer's obersations. Again, the pictures are not meant to be included in the actual article. Their sole purpose is to stifle nonsense about them being some sort of political implantation. We are wasting bandwidth arguing about this. Some trivia is going to remain in the article, and it seems an end-run to try an eliminate it because no particular reviewer has bothered to not the weapon used by the soldiers. Of course, this would be so much easier if Guns-n-Ammo magazine did movie reviews. If some readers want to know that the weapon wasn't invented from whole cloth like a ray gun, then it is our responsibility to add that tidbit.Arcayne 06:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC) As a side note, you are probably right about needing to covince others. If you were to see the pictures and agree that they were in fact simple, verifiable facts, it would be two voices,and not just one. This isn't some sort of crusade or anything. Frankly, I think most of the folk in WP can't agree on the color of shiote, and the CoM article can be seen as absolute proof of that. :)Arcayne 07:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the article being too long. Do you mean the plot summary?
Perhaps Theo's death was a bad example to compare to the trivia about the rifle. I'm not trying to suggest that this piece of information was implanted with some kind of agenda. I understand that the pictures are not meant for the article; I originally took it to mean that you planned to include them, as you asked about uploading images to Wikipedia. When you do that, the images should be worked into the article somehow, or they get orphaned/deleted eventually.
A concern regarding the bit of trivia is its notability. How far should one go in making general observations about the film? Should the type of tanks be noted by editors educated in tank background? The type of fashion worn by the main characters? That's why the trivia section is discouraged -- anyone can dump their observations in there. Trivia doesn't have to remain in an article -- take a look at any FA-class and GA-class film article that exist without trivia sections and have incredibly compelling content. Why encourage the existence of the section at all?
I know that you mean well in providing content for these articles, however. I'm just being critical because I enjoy reading articles at their very best, especially film articles. Wikipedia will always lag in the perfect-article department, but I try to be idealistic and provide what I can with certain film articles on my watchlist. Now, I'm going to retire for the night. It was interesting to debate with you, and I hope you understand my perspective. I certainly understand yours, though I'm not necessarily in full agreement with it. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Erik. I am aware that you dislike any trivia sections, thinking it sloppy. I think that an article can be near-perfect and still provide for trivia, defining trivia as information not reflective of the plot of the film, but interesting from a viewer's point of view regardless. After all, this is why a great many DVDs come with bonus disks with deleted scenes, Making Of specials and various production notes. This doesn't detract fromt he quality of the movie (or an article about that movie); i rather think it adds dimension to the work. Now, where this argument concerns CoM grows ever so tenuous as people split hairs over what was written on a wall. As I consider it important, I will find a way to incorporate it into the body of the plot synopsis. However, if people want to know what weaponry (or duplicate mock-ups) were used as props, I feel that putting it into the main article is essentially crowding, and inefficient, whereas a trivia section (call it production notes, whatever) allows for the Irish Pennants of movie information to migrate to.Arcayne 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with trivia if the section didn't encourage further POV or useless additions by other editors. There's not really a structure provided for a Trivia section -- it would have to be a continual stream of consensuses over what should fit in the Trivia section or not. With the Production section, it's easier to implement because it's part of a timeline, where the Trivia section is like a grab bag. I would be fine with a cited mention of the XM8 as part of a paragraph in which the director or someone from the studio explains how they shaped the future aspect of the plot -- the technology, the politics, etc. Hopefully, there will be some further coverage about that on the DVD or in a magazine's featured article, but in the meantime, the information seems orphaned, and I wish there was a home for it, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shanti

Good luck with keeping the Shanti reference. The person who removed it is an admin, and I doubt you're going to change his mind. I'm not in full disagreement with him, but it's better than nothing. What's annoying is that I looked on Rotten Tomatoes to see if that movie review site was on it, and sure enough, it was -- but it didn't have the Children of Men review listed. It even had other reviews listed by the same authors of the Children of Men review. That could help validate the reliability of the movie review if Rotten Tomatoes has used it in the past, but it could be called into question why there was no CoM review from RevolutionSF on the site. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I pitched my argument at User talk:A Man In Black#Children of Men. Let's see how it goes over. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found the review at Rotten Tomatoes: here. I find it worth noting that User: A Man in Black, is also a contributing editor at RT. The revolutionssf link appears to be working as well: [16]. Lastly, here is a citation of the actual poem | here

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Image-XM8_CoM.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-XM8_CoM.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

{{help}}

Just let the image sit, and it'll be deleted in time. Nothing bad will happen as a result of this. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't actually looking for that, Erik. I wanted to know the proper tag to put with the picture, or if it is an unusable picture as per WP guidelines. If it is against the rules, i will remove it myself, and not leave a mess for someone else. As well, I mafe a comment about Viri's proposed removal of the Trivia section altogether. That seems kinda high-handed to me. Two people does not equal a concensus.Arcayne 20:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about images for articles other than ones about films, but I suggest you check out WP:FA#Media and look at film articles that have Featured Article status. Click on the images (poster and otherwise) and take a look to see how the fair use rationale and licensing is set up. Also, I think Viriditas is referring to WP:AVTRIV, which indicates that consensus was reached by many editors to create this guideline (which doesn't come lightly). You won't find an FA-class film article with a trivia section; things are worked into the article or eliminated otherwise. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will do that.New problem, though, I have been noticing that Viri has been moving through the article wiping out large amounts of the plot synopsis. I know we are supposed to be be bold in our edits, but this seems like he is fitting it to his own personal liking. That seems, well, uncool.Arcayne 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Plot section originally had a {{plot}} tag for the reason that the plot was too overly long. The word count is under 900 words, which is the maximum count in accordance with style guidelines for the film. If you noticed, Smokin' Aces was in definite violation of that as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice to know you've been watching my page, Erik. I am starting toget an idea as to who is watching my page; both disconcerting and flattering at the same time. Yes, I noticed the hell-on-a-pointy-stick that is Smokin' Aces. I retired from editing 'coz I had a date last night. I was planning on revisiting it again today, but was mostly unfamiliar with the style guidelines. I will check them out as well. Overly long is a bad thing, but editors and users are supposed to find a middle ground in their edits., Viri doesn't seem to be seeking this out before making his edits. I am quickly learning that most of editing in Wikipedia is a matter of simple stamina. I am here for the long run, Erik. If I disagree witht the edits, I will address them, correct them, etc. short of breaking the 3rr.Arcayne 20:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas isn't generally communicative about these things. He edited The Fountain (my pet project) for a while, and he and I never really had an open-end discussion regarding the article structure. I guess it's the same thing here, and he's just doing what he can in adherence to the guidelines. The plot was overly long, so he addressed that. If you feel like information is missing, feel free to re-edit the plot as long as it's kept under the 900-word count per the guideline.
I disagree that editing on Wikipedia is a matter of simple stamina. The "stamina" issue comes into play when there is content dispute. Children of Men is undergoing massive changes now 'cause it wasn't built up properly as there were no editors making the film article their focus at the time. We repeatedly take a page from film articles that have Featured Article status to improve the rest of the articles (hence the removal of Cast). If you have an issue with the edits being made, feel free to contest them on the talk page or directly with the user with the reasons why. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that we are in disagreement over the issue of stamin. Every time I make and edit, Viri (or someone else) removes it or substitutes something else. I change it back, and the circle goes on and on. Tell me how than t doesn't become a matter of simple stamina.I will contest them on the talk page and address them with the user inquestion, but if they choose to ignore the request for discussion, it becomes a stamina game. Allow me to be clear here: I am fully aware of your desire to make every article you come into contact with a good article, and am somewhat convinced that your methods are correct. However, the wholsesale re-editing of an entire article by one person, without article consensus from those performing edits in the article, seems the antithesis of concensus. It seems arrogant. Arcayne 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you mean about the stamina game. Viri and I went through that over The Fountain, but it tapered off. However, I don't see this issue as commonplace because editors come and go. The conflict can happen if more than one editor has an eye on a particular article, but sometimes they can form a "team" that can discuss easily. I'm on one particular team for Spider-Man 3. I'm not sure, though, what issues that you have with this film article's editing process, as we've been adhering to policies and guidelines. We make the changes because Wikipedia tells us to be bold. I'm not sure what you would consider an edit war in the edit history for Children of Men; I can understand your discomfort with the massive changes that have taken place -- the plot trimming, the content forking of the soundtracks, trivia dissemination, etc. Lack of communication can be an issue sometimes, but I don't see that happening here with this particular article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, I take exception to the idea of teams. Period. The idea that each member of a 3-person team can revert a single editor's work without triggering a 3RR violation, whilst the single editor has to scramble to reinsert his edits is unethical, at best. I am not saying that you are a part of that, Erik, but I am sure you can see the potential for abuse by a team. If you and other editors are of a mind on an isdsue, bring your concerns to the talk page, and talk them out. To do otherwise is stacking the deck against the individual editor, which seems to go against what Wikipedia is supposed to be. As for being bold, I have figuredout how to fix the copyright issues of the rifle image, and have decided to be bold and insert it into the article under production. After all, it belongs there rather than trivia, after all. A last point about trivia sections: while I have come around somewhat to the idea that trivia sections are lazy editing, it cannot be denied that their temprary presence serves as a clearing house for data to be integrated into the article. Data considered to be trivia should be found a home in the article unless it has nothing to do with the subject of the article, or is so peripheral so as to be distracting, don't you think?Arcayne 21:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that you have potential as an editor. Hence why I'm so responsive to you on your talk page and all. I understand the concerns that you've raised, and I think we're just making bold edits because we know what we're doing (or more appropriately, we like to think that). You're going to run into editors of various philosophies; mine is obviously be-anal-about-citing, which has worked out for me so far. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I appreciate that compliment, Erik. :) I would like to become an editor, but I still think I have a ways to go before pursuing that road. I still have difficulty holding my temper with fools (but I have learned through being chastened that there is worth in being far more civil). I also am still learning about how to accomplish simple tasks like adding pictures in, or finding wiki essays on how policies are interpreted (still having difficulties with that last one). I am not too proud to ask for help when I don't know something. Anyone should feel free to offer a suggestion, or a link (explaining what the link is supposed to provide me, info-wise). And I appreciate neat-freaks, Erik. So long as the baby doesn't get tossed out with the bathwater. :) Arcayne 22:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that teams could potentially abuse their collaborative advantage, but in my case with SM3, we've generally taken it to the talk page before the risk of 3RR violation arises for either side. I think my teammates and I are honest enough as not to slip into groupthink. I'm sure Wikipedia's encountered issues with team abuse. However, I think teams can work when each individual has a good grasp of the guidelines and policies, and is willing to listen to how others perceive them. If you'd like to develop your editing skills, I'd suggest finding an article that has low traffic and is underdeveloped. I could answer any edit-related questions as you work on improving it but be hands-off of your project. I'm not suggesting that you stop editing Children of Men, but I think it might be easier to learn the technical process separate from the bureaucratic process. I noticed you're learning both at the same time, which is probably overwhelming to you. I started with the former, being more of a WikiGnome, then acquired the latter by being more bold and interactive with articles. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I myself started that way, and quickly fell into it as I saw some of the nutty edits being performed on some of the articles for some political candidates. I started actively contributing then, aware of the potential damage of a team of editors changing data in one candidate or another's article to create a viral conception as to that candidate's actions, positions or words, resulting in a skewed voter perception. I still find that a terrifying concept, one for which Wikipedia has little in the way of guidelines and/or protections. Btw, thanks for the wikignome template. I've added it to my own user page. I've noticed that their placement is somewhat problematic, much like the picture of the soldier in the article. Are the guidelines about how to place a picture, or its it pretty much trial and error?Arcayne 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've generally stayed hands off with articles that have a high risk of NPOV violation, such as politicians and controversial issues. I don't think Wikipedia should be approached as the ultimate source for these things, as it should be recognized by visitors that "anyone" can edit Wikipedia, potentially creating a POV slant. I like working on film articles, as they're more focused on the descriptive side. I'm actually amateurish in one aspect, though, writing Reception sections. It's just hard for me to determine how to best present different reviewers' opinions in an encyclopedic manner. But I definitely can do Production sections. Liked your All your base mention, by the way -- haven't thought about it for a while. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

I wanted you to know that Answers.com references Wikipedia on just about everything. That articles on Answers is the same article on Wiki, so in essence you are citing Wikipedia as the source of information for itself.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  20:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nifty. Thanks for the heads up. I will find another one. I would like to point out that I think your edits are bit too sever, and I think you and I have some pretty different views on the word concensus. You refer to it as one of policy, whilst inferring that it was one within the community of the article. I will be watching the edits, and correcting them as necessary.

Not sure which you are referring to.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem. There are more specific templates, but if you are just going to do a reference note, then make sure to add a "/" on the end (like "</ref>")  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  22:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you offer an example of what you mean there? and how did you change your sig line to include colors? I canna ken how ye kitted that out. lolArcayne 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If you click the link to the templates you can scroll down and see different kinds "cite news", "cite web", and they provide examples of how to fill out the information. It would look like this <ref>{{cite web | url=www.wikipedia.org/whoknows/blah/example | title=For you help | publisher=Wikipedia | date=This would be the date it was published | accessdate=the day you read it}}</ref>. For colors in your sig, go to your preferences and where it says signature you put in your code. Then make sure you have the little box below that clicked. If you aren't familiar with HTML enough to do it on your own (i'm personally not), I suggest taking my code ([[User:Arcayne|'''<span style="background:Maroon; color:Gold">  Arcayne </span>''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|<span style="background:Gold; color:Maroon"> '''(Question?)''' </span>]][[Special:contributions/Arcayne|<span style="background:Maroon; color:Gold"> '''(What I do)''' </span>]] I'll stick in your name) and replacing the colors and words to your liking. You can get colors here. For images, it kind of is trial and error, just use the preview bottom to get an idea of what the picture will look like.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  23:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XM8 dispute

I noticed that you insinuated to A Man In Black that Viriditas brought him into it. I would caution you against such accusations; people aren't out to get you. Like we've talked about on the talk page, the trivia point about the XM8 is original research. You do know that you can check out the contributions of other users? Every act is public on Wikipedia. Go to Special:Contributions/Viriditas and choose "User talk" from the drop-down menu. You'll see that the last time he talked to A Man In Black was January 18th, and it was about the Pink Floyd reference. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 06:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

hmm. okay. It seemed a bit odd that right after I replaced the item afer Viri removed it, A Man in Black reverted it. A suspicious mind would think that in order to avoid running afoul of the 3RR rule, one might involve an admin, maybe through another ID or via non-Wiki email. Maybe i am being a bit too suspicious. It just seemed damned odd.Arcayne 06:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Image-XM8 CoM.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-XM8 CoM.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project

Whatever you decide to do, if you want me to impart advice, just let me know what article you're eyeing and I'll watchlist it to follow your changes. You can contact me on the talk page if you have any questions, technical or otherwise. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest using colons at the beginning of your comments to indent them? It helps determine the different directions that the discussion is going, as we're kind of talking about two things. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I was aware of how to indent, but I didn't want to indent ad infinitum. Most of the places where i did not indent were areas that wer already indented, and I didn't want to continure shrinking each line. Is there protocol for when to indent and when not to in the middle of a longer conversation?Arcayne 08:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There's not really protocol for it -- it just helps organize back-and-forth responses. Obviously, you shouldn't venture into indent hell, with ten colons to push it over. When it gets to be too far to the right, then you can usually start over with a new, non-indented line. Look at the talk page -- I asked about the production/theme with a single indent, and you replied with no indent. However, Viri put his comment between yours and mine with two indents, where if you had yours indented like his, his comment would probably have been placed after yours. Hope that makes sense. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 08:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Midnight Hobo

google is your best friend. `'mikka 06:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, ok. Nonsequitur much? (dude, I have no idea what that was about...)Arcayne 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

<Sigh>. It looks like I have to feed raccoons myself... I thought you remember our own edits. Campbell does have a short story "Midnight Hobo". ("Midnight Sun" is his novel). `'mikka 02:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was almost a year ago, and I was new. I might have made the deletion based on Jeph's commentary as to how he invented Midnight Hobo from whole cloth. He might have absorbed the Campbell title in passing. I should have retained it anyway. Thanks for reminding me. :)Arcayne 15:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

He added a slash (/) because the link in your talk page was to an article in the mainspace, not in your userspace as you had intended. He found the archive while new page patrolling, realized it was created because you forgot the slash, moved the archive to your userspace, and corrected the link on your talk page. I'm pretty sure anyway :p Leebo86 17:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(dawn breaks over wooden head...) Oh, I see. Sorry about that. I guess I am still making some significant mistakes. Thank you for explaining things out. :)Arcayne 17:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Citation

It was at the end. There should be a frontslash in the last ref>. Also, it appeared as though you inserted the same citation twice. When I looked at the bottom there were two for the link you just added. Was that your intention? If so, there is a better way to re-use the same source material. If it wasn't, then I guess you just forgot to remove your other citation.

Not it wasn't my intention to add it twice. I thought it had been removed for some reason (as opposed to not showing up bc I had screwed up the original insertion), and I was adding it back in before heading to the talk page to send up a flag. I will go and fix it now, unless you already have.Arcayne 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't removed it, because I wasn't sure if you were intending to use it twice. It seemed to be at the end of two different sentences. Oh, and yes, I was referring to the </ref> on the second (technically the "third" if you look at the citation numbers at the bottom) references.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  18:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll remove it. On a side note, have you seen this review? It seems to be one of the few negative ones I've seen for the film,Arcayne 18:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You can find more negative reviews here. Also, I'm confused about the so-called "anonymous" person you were talking to on the CoM talk page. The talk page history doesn't reflect anyone but you, me, and Viriditas discussing the article as of late. I hope that wasn't a poor man's sockpuppet. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I was referring to the lack of a sig on the talk page, which didn't let me know who I was talking to (I think it was Big, as he and I have talked a bit about some citation errors I made, and there was no sig on those, either). While I have heard of sockpuppets, I am not sure I would know one if I saw it.Arcayne 18:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Look at the talk page's history. You were the only person making any comment since my "Animals" comment before I commented again a few minutes ago. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't actually seen the film, and have not read reviews for it either. My interests was initially only about how and if to use the rifle info, but since it was on my watchlist I've just been watching for copy-edit things (and the occasionally suggestion of better structuring). Like Erik provided, Rotten Tomatoes is a good place to find both positive and negative reviews. They catalog so many critics that it's a good place for diversity. As for the lack of sig, I don't recall making the comment (but I do remember thinking the same thing). I'll go back through the history to my edits and see if it was me. If it was then I apologize for the confusion. (BTW, that is two edit conflicts in a row..lol)  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  18:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am taking a break from Indent Hell, and starting anew. :) I would recommend the movie, you silly goof - how else can you comment on a movie you haven't seen? lol! As for the rifle info, my goat was effectively 'gotten', so I put in a call to H&K this morning, to their media department. My intent is to verify that the weapon mock-up used in the film was in fact the XM8. I am still figuring out how to get something citable that folk can see, although literature and news reperts are not always online (as Erik has mentioned). Any tips on what to ask for from H&K when they call back? On a last note, did you actually go to Stanford, too? The sig colors...Arcayne 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is why I've kept my opinion to myself for the most part. I've tried to only edit objectionably, and not about how to interpret things. That's why I didn't remove the trivia, just cleaned it up (the same for the rifle thing when you inserted the image). I'm not sure how to address the H&K thing, because they could see an image and say "yes it is", but there's no proof or verifiability other than that. Now, if they could verify that they provided the guns for the film (which seems more likely than the producers going and buying brand new ones). I don't know, like I said before to Erik, it seems like something that could be verified on the DVD in a "making of" documentary. As for my colors, they're not Stanfard (not intentionally). I believe Stanford's colors are "Cardinal" and "White". My colors are "Maroon" and "Gold". I was attempting to find "Garnet" but we don't have that available color here, so I had to find the next closest thing. Garnet & Gold are the FSU colors, hence the name Bignole (Seminoles).  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do) 

[edit] Children of Men redux

Are you not able to read where I mentioned that the director did not want to glorify violence and thus did not equip the "hero" with a weapon? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry; I must have missed it. I will chack the article again. My question wasn't meant to be anything other than an inquiry, not a challenge.Arcayne 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It's fine. I'm kind of throwing in bits and pieces here and there, but ultimately, I'm hoping for the content to tie together instead of having handfuls of sentences here and there. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I found the relevent passage in the Production Header. The HIS had it placed in the Theme header. My bad; I must have read it wrong.
I know you are working hard at it. Please understand I am trying to add constructively to the article as well, Erik. I am not trying to be a pain.Arcayne 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand. You do occasionally raise valid points. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I still love you, you anal-retentive bastidge. :) Arcayne 23:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask if you plan to help add any sort of content to the article? There's a smorgasbord of links to draw from. I found that the Animals and "Shantih" reference were already around in January 11, when you apparently started getting involved this article. Feel free to contribute content-wise; build some credibility that way. Not sure if Viri's too hot for you since the points that you've raised are on the nitpicking side. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What sort of content do you feel it still needs? I have been adding a little in the way of content, mostly in the way of a few citations here and there and gnereal grammar and itsy stuff. I am not tryng to be nitpicky at all. I am sorry that Viri is upset, but he hasn't made himself all that easy to work withArcayne 15:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
(Whoops, I didn't see your recently added comment. Read on.) I'd like to follow this up in case you get defensive. I don't know if you recognize this in your comments, but they sometimes lack a serious tone. That's why I thought I misunderstood you when you asked about where I integrated the information about the futuristic vehicles. Also, Viriditas had even gone far enough to slap a {{TrollWarning}} template on the talk page, though I've removed it. I'm just requesting, step back and review how you've been commenting. From where I'm standing, Viri's a fairly serious editor, and he probably doesn't take your comments in the best light. I also mentioned contributing some more information to the article. While you've done reverts and clean-ups (and the clean-up part is appreciated, haha), it's still minor compared to what Viri and I have been adding to the article. Of course, you're not required to do this, but like the real world, being contributive gains you a bit more respect. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I would add more, if I felt a bit more confident about what to add, Erik. I do admit that sometimes my comments are indeed sometimes light-hearted. I take my editing seriously, but that doesn't mean I cannot take some enjoyment out of it. Viri is not my marionette; I cannot control his actions any more than I can control how he feels. The fact that he hasn't bothered to deal politely with me (and ignoring someone is not the equivalent of civility) and this recent tactic of calling me a troll makes me care a great deal less for his pov. I know that he contributes more than me; that is to be expected, he has been here longer than I have and knows the ropes somewhat more. Also, my job (the one that actually pays my bills) is such that when bad weather or natural disasters occur, I am busier than a long-tailed cat in a roomful of rocking chairs. I am not proffering that as an excuse, Erik but as a reality. It's intermittently very slow, and then crazy to beat the band. I am trying to learn about how to do things correctly (so they don't get reverted 5 minutes after I put them up) in the time I have available. Sometimes that means my time and focus are a bit divided. Maybe you could suggest some areas of the article that need work or development.Arcayne 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's why I suggested separating the learning process of the technical work and the bureaucracy. There will be some overpowering editors on Wikipedia; Viriditas is hardly up there. :) Since you're still learning the ropes on Wikipedia, and it's been showing on the talk page, I have to admit you don't appear to have the greatest credibility as an editor. There are different types of editors you have to work with, and you have to conform to a different kind of relationship with each one. To be honest, I think that the "Shantih" reference in the Plot section would have been long gone if I wasn't around to present a valid argument or two. I don't want you to stop having fun with Wikipedia. I like working with upcoming film articles 'cause most of them have low traffic, but I keep my eye on a few "busy" articles (and this one snagged me).

So I think you should choose an article on an upcoming film. Take a look at my list of release dates. I would recommend Stardust or Jumper, as both need to be re-structured and cited badly. I have headline archives for both films, so let me know if you have a preference, and I'll dump a smorgasbord of links on the talk page for you to work on. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask, did you see the words after the credits yourself? I'm sort of doubting the validity of the appearance. Also, if it did, how it did appear -- "Shantih Shantih Shantih" or "Shantih! Shantih! Shantih!"? Apparently, the two citations that you were using before seemed to be talking about the chants that took place in the film, with no mention of the line after the credits. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I did in fact see the last line right after the credits after the movie the first time (quite by accident, as I was wanting to see the counties of England it was filmed in - I used to live in some parts that seemed familar). The words appear by themselves, white text on black background: ""Shantih Shantih Shantih", no italicization or punctuation whatsoever, and in larger type than any of the credits. In the film, people were chanting those words, most notably by Miriam and Kee.
I think you misinterpreted what I said. I consider the shantih's to be a part of the movie (ie, part of the story and in the movie) and not like outtakes or blooper reels or whatever. Is that what you were thinking? I am sorry if it had been unclear.Arcayne 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's fine -- I guess I doubted the imagery because the two cited reviews were mentioning the repeated "Shantih" phrase in a way that it sounded like part of the film, and not after the credits had rolled. I really need to get around to seeing the film -- might help me figure out this long shot business, too. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

well, perhaps they consider it to be part of the story (as opposed to the credits or whatever). Concerning the long, uninterrupted shot, I thought it was real. There was 'blood' spattered on the camera lens during the running gun battle, and that spatter didn't change during the entire shot. However, with the level of advanced CGI out there, nothing can really be believed anymore. If it was faked, I was fooled. I actually thought it was a editing mistake, jarring the audience out of the story, making them realize they were watching a movie.
And yes, you should see it. It's actually really good. The ending was a little creepy for me, but notreviewer has caught it yet. As the fishing trawler Tomorrow approaches, no one on the boat is smiling. Maybe they are4 concentrating on finding her amidst all the combat going on beyond the shoreline, or maybe it is about to turn into a horror movie. lolArcayne 01:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm mixed about how much of the "Shantih" reference to use. I wish that it was pointed out more frequently by reviewers, but with all the cross-referencing the director seems to have done (especially with contemporary imagery), this one seems to have been relatively minor. Who knows, maybe the DVD commentary will delve into all these themes and more. Also, for the long shots, I'm assuming for some shots it was natural, but for some others, they were takes stitched together. About how many long shots do you think were in the film? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know enough about Hinduism (like most Westerners) to comment specifically about it. I imagine that once CoM is released in India, some Indian publications will publish reviews (translated online into English). As there is a gi-normous Indian population in the UK (there is a saying that the most authentic place to have Indian food...is in London), this might have happened already. The translation process may be slowing down the internet appearance. However, it seems to have a lot to do with the Upanishads, which I read back as an undergrad.
I think there were two long shots (the ambush and then the military running battle). Honestly, I am not sure that the blood-spattered shot was real. I think it was preserved because, as it stands, its a pretty nifty accomplishment. Cuaron and the cinematographer may have simply been bragging a bit by keeping it is, because it doesn't fit the rest of the movie.Arcayne 01:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shantih revisited

I contacted a couple of editors who have done worthwhile work with film articles -- The Filmaker and Hal Raglan. You can see the credentials on their user pages, and my message to them on their talk pages. I have a feeling that Viriditas is going to disagree with you, anyway, and this back-and-forth issue needs to be resolved. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that Viri would disagree with me on the color of grass; I have tried to find some sort of middle ground with him, and its quite useless. I am not at all surprised to find that it was him waiting to remove the reference yet again, just biding his time to do so. I know I am supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he's since used up that particular reservoir with me.Arcayne 18:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes it's difficult to compromise when it's only a matter of a sentence. It's not like you can just make it a fragment and everyone's happy. A single sentence can expand the content of an article, contributively or unnecessarily. I understand both of your reasons for it, and I have to say that it's not an easy call to make. I'm surprised you're both so divided and sure, honestly. It's not fun to tangle with other editors; one of my least favorite parts of the editor's job. But in a lot of cases, ideas can be shared if the discussion is appropriate, even if there is no final decision. I mean, we have the reference in the Themes section, and I think that particular section will be attractive to a lot of readers. There are things in the film, examples of imagery, that aren't detailed in the plot section, but they're emphasized in the Themes section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I can understand your point, Erik; tangling with an editor, esp. one who is nowhere near as willing to share his experience with a user as you are, is a sticky affair. I feel I am right here, despite my inexperience with WP and the lack of credibility that implies. The Shantih is a part of the story being told, simply put. The thread of the children laughing and playing from immediately before the screen fades to black and continuing whilst the credits roll and concluding after the three words are on the screen says to me that the 'story is still occurring, put down the coat and sit back down, there's still more to be seen'.
The shantih is different from your examples of imagery in that none of those images are specifically stated, ie. this is my slightly futuristic weapon, or gee, aren't there a great number of pets here? Those are solidly thematic subject. Shantih is actually stated; that no character in the film actually states them - and states them in a plot-progressing way like a car chase, or a line of spoken dialogue. I am not arguing over its superior thematic value. I am saying that, as it is actually an even in the movie and can be tied to the movie's progression of plot, then it is in fact a part of that movie's plot. Making the notatin brief in plot is appropriate, as its appearance was brief as well. The thematic elements can be discussed at length, I think, but there isn't a lot of other stuff going on, research-wise, to develop it out.Arcayne 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I think both of you have valid points. Let's find out what kind of independent opinions we can get. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

okay.Arcayne 18:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
They haven't responded to my inquiry on either my talk page or theirs. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the shantih edit

Jasper's house with Kee and Miriam. At Jasper's, Miriam explains the rendezvous with the Human Project's ship Tomorrow is scheduled at a buoy offshore from the Bexhill refugee camp. Upon discovering Kee's pregnancy, Jasper tells her that her baby was "the miracle the world was waiting for", and recites the words, Shantih, shantih shantih. Jasper hatches a plan to smuggle them into the camp w

...the boat as the Tomorrow emerges from the thick fog, unsmiling people on her decks moving towards Kee and her child. As the screen begins to fade to black, the anachronistic and disembodied sounds of children laughing and playing are heard. At the very end of the film, the words "Shantih Shantih Shantih" briefly appears onscreen. As the words fade, so too the sounds of children.

[edit] Request for comment

WP:RFC. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, read WP:DR first. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for commenting yet again... but WP:DR suggests a third opinion for a dispute between two editors. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I know. I have tried the avoidance and disengaging and talking it out. There seems no resolution. It isn't that I don't respect the guy's other edits - I do. Fact is, were it not for his utter intransigence and name-calling, I would probably be learning from him just as I am from you.
this is how I view the issue, metaphorically. Let's compare the statements at the end of the movie to the Sun on a sunny day. The sun is high in the sky - an observation (as the sun is in fact there and part of the day). To comment on the heat or light or other radiation that it gives off is akin to thematics in that the sun's presence has an effect on the sunny day, in the same way that a plot issue can have an effect in the theme. Some things are simply theme, like the wind, or humidity or odors in the air affecting the perception of that sunny day. To deny the sun's existence when it is an observational fact is illogical to me. That an editor who claims to have seen the film multiple times seems keen on doing just that is unfathomable to me.Arcayne 03:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

I just finished politely requesting that you avoid my talk page and work on keeping the discussion on the article talk page, and right away, you leave me a comment on my talk page. This is the kind of trollish behavior I am talking about. I am willing to chalk it up as an innocent mistake on your part, but for now, please respect my wishes and leave my talk page alone. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

sigh...very well. I did try to resolve this conflict through talking with you about it. If you choose not to even try, then you only have yourself to blame for the results.
I don't have a personal conflict with you. I have chosen to resolve a conflict about article content on the article talk page. If you think you have a personal conflict with me, or believe that I have a personal conflict with you (even though I have just finished explaining to you that I don't) then I suppose you should talk to someone about it, preferably an administrator or a mediator. —Viriditas | Talk 04:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR reports

3RR reports from 4 days ago are indeed "ancient history" in Wikipedia terms. WP:AN/3RR is intended for current revert-wars, not ones from days ago. Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

An appeal process for rejected 4 day old 3RR reports? No. You can always take any complaint to WP:AN, but I don't predict a very positive response if you do. Just a word to the wise. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR reports that aren't acted on are typically those that are seen as problematic for one reason or another, which is why they aren't acted on. Complaining about a 3RR days after the alleged violation is looked on poorly by admins, which is why I don't predict a positive response on WP:AN, but you're free to do what you wish. I'm not sure why you continually delete my comments from your Talk: page, but I assure you that if you do it again I won't bother responding in the future. Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussions are typically held on the talk pages of both editors having the conversation. I don't see what additional input you need at this point, but if you repeatedly solicit someone's input, then delete it once given, it's bound to be taken badly. I recommend against it in the future. Jayjg (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited info

If the information about a person is uncited and controversial then it should be removed right away. On the other hand if it is uncited and along the lines of "Nancy Reagan is a woman" then there would be little point in removing it. Take a look through Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for some better ideas. If the information is uncited but fairly neutral then you could add a {{fact}} or {{cn}} tag next to the uncited bit. Give the other editors a few days to find the reference. As to seeing them quickly it's because I now seem to have 7,000 pages on my watchlist (plus my sockpuppet has about 6,000 slower editd pages). I do quite a bit of Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol and when making manual edits most everything gets added to the watchlist. Because I can edit at work I am able to update my watchlist fairly often. By the way I do a lot of edits to pages releating to him who must not be named and he's creepy but for total creepiness you just can't beat the man. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project

Got a film article in mind or anything yet? Doesn't have to be a film article, either, but at least that's what I profess in. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Both sound interesting, but I haven't made up my mind. Got pretty swamped with work today. Threats of bursting water mains here in Chicago kept us a bit more than busy in the subzero weather. :)Arcayne 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Easy one first

What you wrote "wreaking havoc upon the fabric of reality" and what I changed it to "wreaking havoc upon the fabric of reality,". Ohh, that makes me look really smart but it was just luck really.

The picture issue. I looked at the page and in general there dosn't seem to be too many but I did notice that several of them have no licence (license) information and will probably be deleted in a while. There is a bit more information at Wikipedia:Images but I think it really runs to editors choice. One problem is that a lot of pictures in a large page slows down the load time. It's not helped when people think that the thumbnail should be 300px or larger. I will reduce the size to "thumb" and let user preferences set the image size. We need to remember that there are still a lot of people who use dialup and we should have some thought for them. Here's an example of Montreal, before and after. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)