Talk:Finding Neverland

Disambiguation

I believe that the film is the clear primary subject for this term, and the others are secondary. The soundtrack and the stage adaptation are obviously both derived from the film. The other is a partial, alternate title. The large number of incoming links to this page that are about the film (or at least were before Blethering Scot ignored my concerns and changed all of them) support the fact that the film is the primary use of "Finding Neverland". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of links does not prove primary topic. Both the musical & film could be considered primary topic at this point and as there are 4 articles with the same title a disambiguation page is clearly needed. U did not dispute the move, hence I carried out the proper process prior to disam. Frankly u have been nothing but antagonistic and provided no reasoning on my talk page why the move was controversial in any way. Other than making a point about I haven't edited the article before. Also removing the incoming links template is not helpful as the bot will re add it, on its next sweep. Blethering Scot 13:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Finding Neverland (disambiguation) would be a good solution for this situation. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also looking at your user page it would appear there are potential Wp:Own issues here as well. Blethering Scot 13:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd, I haven't even reverted anything. I'm simply asking that my views be heard and considered. I did question the move on your talk page, which you saw and then disregarded, going on a editing spree to change links (so don't lecture me about antagonistic editing). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not absurd in anyway. No you said it's a good idea to open a discussion when moving a page and then went on about especially if you have never edited it before. You did in no way state you objected to it. As I said in my reply I saw no need as it wasn't controversial. You did not claim at that point that it was controversial. You then went on to make spurious claims about me ignoring you. I didn't ignore you because u never stated u objected, hence why I began the proper process for redirecting links. Sorry but I've done nothing wrong here. Dont say you did something when u didn't. And yes you are showing ownership issues. Blethering Scot 15:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's getting me more is u are down right lying by saying your notice on my talk page was an objection. In no way was it labelled or could be contrived as one. U then persisted on deliberate antagonistic behaviour on my talk page because I had the ordasity to follow normal process by redirecting links. Sorry but this is not my fault but yours. Blethering Scot 15:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a break from this discussion to give you a chance to calm down. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont need to calm down. You need to properly represent ur case. Rather than misrepresenting what u actually did. You are trying to misrepresent facts and thats not on.Blethering Scot 16:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: Not waiting to discuss, User:Blethering Scot has resumed going through the many pages which used to link to the article about the film and change them to point to his renamed page. My efforts to communicate on his Talk page were blanked. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, his attempts to discuss on my talk page included having a go at my mental health. My talk page is not somewhere i will accept personal attacks at me and is something no user needs to endure. At no point has JasonAQuest attempted a constructive discussion and as such I don't have any interest in discussing this with him. If someone wishes to discuss the points of this without resorting to insults then I will happily do that. He repeatedly posted about my mental health after being asked clearly not to post again unless he wished to have a constructive conversation. He ignored this and tried to persuade me to retire from wikipedia. I dont have to put up with that in any way. He then took to posting on his own talk page and pinging me. This is fast bordering on Wikipedia:Harassment. Blethering Scot 20:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My intention with the personal remarks was to be helpful. I am sorry that it was not perceived that way. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you know u weren't being helpful. Your actions on both my own and your talk page show clear signs of harassment.Blethering Scot 20:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per his request, I will not attempt communicating with this person any further. Best of luck to him. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'm un-watching this page, so I won't see anything else said here. The damage is done, no point in discussing it further -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]