User talk:MisterShiney/Archive March - April 2013

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Many thanks for stepping up a day or so ago, which led to some fairly ridiculous accusations flying both our ways! Your efforts were much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahh well thank you very much SchroCat. I just couldn't believe the his behaviour in bring up old dirt that you were found innocent! Disgusting behaviour that doesn't assume good faith. Oh...that and I was being a nosey git lol. Thanks again. MisterShiney ✉ 01:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling: Theatre District, New York

The move discussion was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. Those who edit articles about theatre should have been so notified. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the administrators' noticeboard

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Zntrip 03:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see my proposal on the talk page of Agenda: Grinding America Down

Because of various changes that have radically changed the above article several times, I propose giving it semi-protected status, once it is examined and resurrected to what is expected of an article. Bill Pollard (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. Some articles are magnets for persons with agendas conflicting with Wikipedia's purpose. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia crew sections

Hi MisterShiney. Per this edit to Sugar Rush (TV series) with the summary "Wikipedia does not have crew sections", actually it does - please see WP:MOSTV. The more important issue is whether there's anything notable to say about any of the crew. Evidentally nobody has thought of anything yet in this case. --Northernhenge (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No. It doesn't. It says "Key crew members for each television show are listed in the infobox and do not need to be listed in the article. Generally, if there are any important people associated with the show they will be mentioned somewhere in the production information." So in the info box. Not a seperate section. MisterShiney ✉ 12:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

My mistake --Northernhenge (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Pacific Rim

I want to assume good faith in here. And I don't want this to escalate into something hostile like an edit war, per WP:CIV. I already addressed your concern in the article's talk page, and I presume you already read it since you already reverted my reversion after my comment. I'll be waiting for a response from you before I request for third opinion. Chihciboy (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It is all good faith fella. As are your additions. I have already replied to your comment as well as inviting other editors (in a neutral way) to comment. If that is the official full name of the film, then that should also be title of the wiki page. MisterShiney ✉ 12:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: Denial of Zero Dark Thirty Historical Accuracy page

MisterShiney,

I don't know if you saw my post about Zero Dark Thirty. Just looking for a way to get the historical accuracy of Zero Dark Thirty onto Wikipedia. It is relevant, whether its on the main page or another page. There appears to be some friction from the Wiki world on both accounts, which I find quite ridiculous. Willing to build an alliance here?Myster Black (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What is this World of Wikicraft? Wikipedia isn't about alliances and ganging up. But through discussion and understanding and reaching a consensus. What you have just done is in breach of policy - trying to canvas for votes. MisterShiney ✉ 09:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well if you can advise me as to how I can actually discuss this with FactsRUS1, then I'm all for a discussion. It appears, however, this user does not want to discuss. There is no User Page for this user. I wrote on the user's talk page without a reply. I'm not trying to gang up on anyone nor pander for votes. I just want to get relevant material about the historical accuracy of Zero Dark Thirty on Wikipedia. Having the page denied because I "made a joke" when I wasn't making a joke, and then not being able to discuss the issues with the judge is a bit Kafkaesque if you ask me. Further, I still believe it would fit in the actual "Zero Dark Thirty" page. For example, there is a historical accuracy section for the movie "Argo". Why is there not one for "Zero Dark Thirty"? I wrote to you because you actually sound like you're willing to have a discussion. Praytell, how can I build consensus if no one replies, and those in power over acceptance of a page cannot be contacted? Myster Black (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for being snappy. There is nothing you can really do except bring it up on the article talk page. Bring it also over to Wiki Project:Film and ask them to come and take part in the discussion. Best advice I can offer I am afraid. MisterShiney ✉ 20:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Saw some of your Edits to In The Flesh. Where can I help out? 81.152.31.232 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, well on the talk page there is a list of potential sources. You could start by taking a look at them. You might also want to consider getting an account and seeing what other projects there are. See you around. MisterShiney ✉ 15:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Overlink

The MOS at WP:OVERLINK tells us "In particular, unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, the following are not usually linked: everyday words (expressions, phrases, terminology, etc.) understood by most readers in context;". Google is commonly understood by internet users (which is Wikipedia readers) and not particularly relevant to the show. that is why I removed the needless wikilink. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You are assuming that everyone has had the same amount of education and use of the internet and as such are familiar with the term. In the very least it should be included for ease of navigation. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Not done: - Conversation closed before I got around to it.

Request of detailed explanation

In The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, you recently undid my edit of the "Plot" section. I would like to ask you to give specific instances of changes you consider wrong, as I think that the edit was not bad enough to be completely undone. Thank you. Hula Hup (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that you have not noticed the message above. I would very much like to hear an elaboration on the reasons for the undoing of my edit. Thank you. Hula Hup (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have to provide a detailed explanation. The previous version was great just the way it was. You removed trivial details and added more trivial details in substitute. It was fine the way it was. If another editor disagreed with me, they too would have reverted it back. Don't take it personally. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm very afraid that you do not clarify which elements you deem trivial and which not. I believe that the middle-of-the-road solution of removing the content you esteem trivial from my version but without restoring the trivia that already existed before my edit would be the most appropriate. Please do not worry, I'm not taking the matter personally. I'm also afraid that the fact that no editor undid your reversion does not mean that consensus is in favour of your edit. I'm looking forward to your reply. Hula Hup (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Your whole changes were I am afraid...trivial dribble. For example, we don't need additional dribble about how the one wring corrupts, when the previous explanation was fine. Actually I think you will find if you read the Wikipedia:Consensus you will find that in a consensus making a change without it being changed/reverted, is the exact definition of a consensus on the subject. At the end of the day, if I hadn't, someone else would of. -- MisterShiney ✉ 06:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that you are exaggerating when you say that the whole edit was trivial dribble. Per WP:CONACHIEVE, "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns." I have proposed an alternative solution which I think is quite logical and the fairest for both of us. I cannot understand the certainty that another person would have reverted the edit, even if you had not. Hula Hup (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Beyond My Ken

Do not edit war to reinsert your comments at User talk:Beyond My Ken, as the user is permitted to remove your comments. Consider this a warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I was just reinserting it to prove a point - which perhaps wasn't the best thing to do. This user has a history of removing any (not just mine) comments that criticise him and his behaviour. I find it astounding that admins haven't taken action. Whilst I agree his edits are mostly constructive, running round accusing people of sock puppetry when he disagrees with someone is just not acceptable. MisterShiney ✉ 20:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

With a few exceptions, it is perfectly acceptable for a user to remove comments from their talk page, as often as they like and regardless of who left them - and no admin is even going to care, never mind act. And your comment was deliberately baiting - you arguably should not have left it in the first place, and you definitely should not have put it back after it was removed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Situation on Talk:List of Game of Thrones characters about Gendry

Hey, I've definitely noticed and appreciated your activity on the Gendry-discussion on said talk page, so kudos for that. However, I have also witnessed you seem to be losing your cool about the situation. Please try to remain calm and civil, even if others in the discussion are not. That last IP address you talked to has no reason to be suspected of sockpuppetry, nor has to be subjected to allegations of bad faith. I'm working alongside you to resolve this pickle as soon as possible. It is my staunch belief that not infuriating any editors on the opposite side of the argument is in our best interest. Not to mention compliant with Wikipedia policies. Have faith: we will overcome this hurdle! No need to lose your temper.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that he has no reason to be suspected, I just find it a little convenient that the registered editor disappears, and then a couple of IP users appear. But you are right, as a registered user I had a duty and obligation to remain cool headed and losing my head. I think I was just a little infuriated that a couple of hours the protection was lifted, an IP reverts the changes again. That and I didn't pick up on it sooner. But anyway's. Thanks for the heads up and friendly chat. MisterShiney ✉ 19:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Cast lists

Hey, I noticed you said that the film MOS indicates not to use separate paragraphs in cast lists. I just checked through the MOS and I didn't notice this bit, could you point me in the direction of it? I've been editing film pages for a while now and I've never come across it. I think it actually makes the pages a bit more cumbersome, as the roles can get buried in a huge wall of text, instead of being easily identified by users who are just scanning over the page and want to read about one specific character. Thanks. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't say that specifically. But it does point out the use of tables is more appropriate for stable articles. MisterShiney ✉ 19:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Corporate names in lead sentences

Hello, MisterShiney. You have new messages at WT:FILM.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Done

Thanks

Thanks for that vigilance, I've redacted the section on my talk page for now just for peace of mind. drewmunn talk 19:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries at all. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply at TAFI talk

Hello, MisterShiney. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement.
Message added by Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnClarknew

I would ignore Clarknew from now on. The guy is a bozo and certainly not worth getting angry over. Great work in combatting this, but I feel this one will not go away. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Legal Action

Wikipedia has a policy. WP:NLT and I agree with it completely. However, they do add the following:

If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly, by email or through any other contact methods the user provides.

That makes a lot of sense. So, please provide me with some contact so that I can contact you directly in order to iron this out. For me, you can contact me at john@johnclarkprose.com. I'll be glad to hear from you, SchroCat. Also Cassianto, MisterShiney, Dr. Blowfeld, Bencherlite and Delicious carbunkle. The rules sensibly provide for that course, so I know you will be happy to abide by it, and I will be happy to hear from one and all of you. JohnClarknew (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignore this. JohnClarknew has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. Bencherlite^Talk 09:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's poor advice Bencherlite. Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats, he clearly feels aggrieved. I've offered my services through OTRS, it's unlikely to be finished. Worm^TT(talk) 09:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignore the implicit suggestion from WTT to give JohnClarknew your contact details for litigation purposes. Bencherlite^Talk 11:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, no, I'm not making any suggestions of the sort. I'm just explaining that you shouldn't just ignore him because he mentions legal threats. I've reached out to him for now and hopefully we can work out something where everyone is happy and we don't end up in a big mess. More at my talk page. Worm^TT(talk) 12:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in providing any of my personal details to John Clark (If that is indeed his real name). I showed this legal "threat" to a lawyer friend of mine and he with an honest face asked "Is this a joke?" I have not broken any laws. I have not committed any crime and I most certainly am still waiting for so called evidence that this user has of me breaching policies. If he still insists on pursuing this matter in a legal sense further, then I hope he has a big wallet because I have no doubt that the presiding judge will throw it out and slap a massive wasting the courts time fine on said user. If the user wishes to seek dispute resolution then he can start by apologising for his pompous behaviour and/or withdrawing his accusations or provide evidence to support them rather than throwing around a few letters and hoping people will be scared off. If he feels I have wronged him in any way, he can provide evidence of such and if needed I shall of course provide an apology. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just looked through what's been happening, and I have to say, I can't see that any of the editors he's come up against - and there have been a few - have done anything that would be classed as breach of policy. Any mistakes made by other users would be corrected with a rap on the knuckles at most, but he seems happy to throw his weight around if anybody so much as sneezes on something he's edited. You could always counter claim for loss of sanity. drewmunn talk 17:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ian Fleming

While I admire your commitment to upholding BRD on the Ian Fleming article, it might be best if you hold off from any more reverts for the time being. If an admin stumbles across that they are likely to hand out blocks right, left and center, and since Ian Fleming isn't a living person the 3RR exception can't be invoked. I think I've made some headway with Jeremy on the talk page so I'll try and get Schro's input tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)