Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:35, 10 August 2008

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Ask

I want you a favor to retract your comment at WP:ANI#User:Sennen goroshi's stalking and disruption because you quoting indef blocked user's malicious report. Besides, that is not relevant issue. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Too late to remove it, since it's been commented on, however, I've struck it out with a comment. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

White space

I understand your dislike of whitespace. No one likes a gap in an article. The problem is that the presence of whitespace as you view the Bloomfield, New Jersey article is not a problem with where the infobox in question is located; it is a matter of your screen size, browser, resolution, text size, window size and all sorts of other variables that result in white space when you view the article. I see no white space in the article as it originally existed. I do have white space now that you have changed it. As the change you have made does not solve the problem for those reading it on any combination of viewing characteristics that differs from yours, and as it does not in any way improve the article, the change is unnecessary, at best. While I would love to solve the whitespace issue on Misplaced Pages, or even on this one article, this is not a solution. Please understand if the article is returned to its previous formatting. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What browser are you using?, because I've checked the article using Internet Explorer, Safari and Firefox, and while there is still a little whitespace under IE, it's nothing like the whitespace that was there under IE before. The other two browsers are fine at both widescreen and standard widths.

My concern is always what a page will look like to people who pop in with standard settings, pretty much out of the box -- other foilks can solve their own problems, it's the masses we have to make sure we present ourselves well to. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox and I have viewed the page on IE without issue. I do agree with the whitespace issue, but I'm unsure that any time should be spent in trying to solve the problem without creating others. Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What I'd like to do is to put the historical population box on the left side of the article, so it can move back up into the "demographics" section, but I've been unsuccessful in figuring out how to do that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 19:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to play with it as well. Alansohn (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

tt;cnr ?

What does this mean? LotLE×talk 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"too tiny; can not read" Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

thx :-)

Gene Kelly

Ed, please show some respect for your fellow editors. I gave a clear summary of why I edited "Academy Award" out of lead. You have no right to just revert it because you see fit. The Academy Award is one of several lifetime achievement awards he received during his lifetime. It's nonsense to treat the lead as though the Oscar was the only one of value. The previous editor that removed it gave the same reason, and you arrogantly reverted without so much as an edit summary. And you've done it again to me. Rather than force your viewpoint on other editors, just please try discussion. I've given a reason and unless you can give a reason for opposing my opinion, you don't have the right to just blindly revert. Rossrs (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

IT has nothing to do with respect -- I pushed the wrong button and the undo went through when I was trying to type in my reason. Please AGF.

Kelly was an American performer, and the Academy Awards are the most prestigious award for American performers. Putting it in the lede is perfectly reasonably, unlike for movies, where "Academy Award-winning" could mean for makeup. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 13:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I was referring to the undo of your edit. The IP editor gave a bogus reason "simplifying" the lede, when it was clear (from his contrib history) that s/he was just removing "Academy Award-winning". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 13:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To be accurate, the edit summary was "keep the first sentence pov and simple". I see nothing bogus in the edit summary as it stands. The anon put "pov" before keeping it "simple". I'm prepared to AGF, as you have reminded me to do, and I will assume that the anon thought the usage conveyed POV, because this is what he/she said. Regardless of the edit history of this anon, I agree with his/her edit in this case. I'm only discussing this edit.

You say it's not about respect. Well, yes it is. I put forward a viewpoint in the edit summary. You had put forward no viewpoint until that point, but instead of respecting that I had offered a viewpoint, you overruled it. AND you've overruled it again, even while this discussion was taking place. I find it a little strange that you're suggesting to me that I should assume good faith, while you are not extending me the same courtesy. You are assuming you're right, and that you've prevailed in the discussion before the discussion is completed. I know you hit the save button by mistake, and your edit summary was lost. I understand that because it's happened to me often enough. What I don't understand is why you felt it so urgent that it had to be changed to suit your taste before continuing the discussion, which brings me back to the beginning of this paragraph.

Onto the awards: ALL of the awards are listed in the awards section at the bottom of the article, and ALL are listed in the infobox. The value or merit of individual awards is not the point - they all have value, and in the eyes of a different beholder, a Kennedy Center Honor, for example, might be more prestigious, considering that it acknowledges excellence across a range of artistic forms. You say that the Academy Award is the most prestigious and, I agree that the publicity and commercial influence of the award may make it so, but it's not an absolute fact. It's an opinion, regardless of whether it's held by you, me or both of us. You're making a value judgement, and then forcing the value judgement onto the article, where it is no longer your value judgement, but Misplaced Pages's value judgement. Misplaced Pages should not be expressing value judgements, and where it occurs it is usually removed on the basis of not complying with our policy of NPOV. For the record, I disagree with your opinion, and I disagree with the way you've handled this situation. You have not convinced me. But, whatever. This is just for the record. Rossrs (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Making a lede is a process of selection. We say that Kelly is a dancer, an actor and so on, but Kelly was also a father and a husband, yet these facts are not mentioned. Why? Because they're not significant enough to warrant inclusion. Kelly also won many awards, but the most significant and prestigious is the Academy Award, which is why it merits inclusion. If, in some future world, the BAFTA Awards or the European Film Awards (if such a thing exists or is created) become the most significant awards in the English-speaking film world, then they will merit inclusion and the Academy Awards will not. In the meantime, in the real-world, the fact is that the Academy Awards are the most significant awards, especially for an American film actor. That's not an opinion, it's reality. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 15:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's an opinion, but we should move past that point. We've been at cross purposes. We've both referred to "the lead" but really the issue is "the opening sentence". According to the biography manual of style, the lead sentence should establish the identity and notability of the subject. The opening sentence is a "definition". In Kelly's case he was notable as a dancer, choreographer and an actor etc, but he was not particularly notable as an Academy Award winner. If the very first descriptive term in his article is "Academy Award winning" it is placing undue emphasis on it, and is also taking it out of context. It could be assumed by many people that he had won for a particular performance which of course is not the case. It's dealt with more effectively in some featured articles such as (Bette Davis, Judy Garland, Angelina Jolie, Diane Keaton, Vivien Leigh, Cillian Murphy, Satyajit Ray and Reese Witherspoon) that include mention of awards or award nominations, in context and without using "Academy Award winning". The lead here isn't particularly representative as a summary of the article, by the way. We should move forward. Rossrs (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've looked at your re-working of the lede section, and it seems well-balanced to me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Bennett-Choreographer

Hi Ed, I noticed you removed the cat: Choreographer from Michael Bennett, the well known choreographer. It seems like a good idea to me. What are your thoughts on the removal? Thanks, and cheers--Cbradshaw (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. That makes sense. My only suggestion would be to include an edit summary as you make the change. Thanks again, and cheers-Cbradshaw (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, of course, I should have. My excuse is that I was undoing a lot of those errant edits today by hand. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

thanks for informing me about the WP:AN/I report; but your summary of the events is totally biased towards the view of Romaioi - as didn't know about his smear campaign over the last month I had to read it all first and am speechless at the level of insults, insinuations and the lies he threw around over the course of the last month. I know my post is long, but it is for 80% a sample of the slanderous/insulting comments his made, but you should read it as it will make it clear to you that Romaioi has filed the WP:AN/I report for malicious and frivolous reasons. --noclador (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring over non-free images

Please stop mechanically undoing removals of non-free images. Those removals are covered by policy. If you wish to challenge them, the onus is on you to initiate a discussion and at least give a substantial argument what you think their crucial contribution to the article is and why you think they are indispensable. Adherance to NFCC will be enforced, if necessary with blocks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that "edit warring" involves multiple reverts, I don't see how you can call a single revert "edit warring." No, what we have here is two different interpretations of policy, and you're on the other side from me. Considering that, it would be hightly inappropriate for you to use to tools to block me, since you are, indeed, "involved". So, please refrain from threatening me in an attempt to intimidate me from editing according to a legitimate interpretation of the rules, which does not involve mass deletion of any and every non-free image that the least pretext can be found for. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 19:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Serial undoing of multiple edits by the same user across multiple articles, and over the same issue, most certainly is edit-warring. And I am entitled to use my admin tools in an issue in which I have previously been active in an administrative function such as enforcing non-free-content policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion on my talk page. Please have a nice day. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 19:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Romaioi - Brunodam checkuser

A checkuser was indeed run on Romaioi; It showed that the Generalmesse sock circus originated in New South Wales and Romaioi was registered by an IP from Perth, Australia. As Romaioi stated in one of his rants that he was in Brisbane for work I and other editors believe that while on this trip he created the socks (as Brisbane is in New South Wales) - this foresight makes me believe that the user behind Romaioi was expecting to run into trouble on wikipedia and also that this was not his first sock creation (the knowledge about checkuser and his demand to make one, point also in the direction that he already knew how checkuser works and that he knew it would turn up negative.)
As for Brunodam - the connection doesn't seem obvious as Brunodam usually edits from Broomfield Colorado, but Brunodam had/has a habit to create socks wherever he went - so new users popped up and would support him and edit exactly the same articles like he did with the same POV, but when a checkuser was run, if Brunodam was related to them the results were that he had registered in Colorado and the socks were registered in Italy or Florida or Georgia and so on... --noclador (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)