Jump to content

User talk:NinjaRobotPirate/Archive2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Ross

Mr Ross is 'colourful' businessman who has cost a lot of people millions of pounds. He employs professionals to clean up his Wikipedia entry. Mark Bolland, a well known PR professional with several 'colourful' clients is close to Ross and sits on several Ross boards. His firm has been known to 'clean' Wikipedia articles, and when spotted to employ students and others to do this for him. Have a look at the user Giggsisalegend and tell me he is not a PR stooge. It is important that the public receive a fair view of Mr Ross. I do not publish anything inaccurate, I just want to make sure that others do not suffer as I did as a result of false impressions. Whilst Forbes and the Sunday Times agree on the wealth of Ross's erstwhile colleague Dunstone, Forbes, the global authority on wealth lists, does not rate Ross a billionaire. It is important that the public know that Ross's wealth is disputed, especially as he has hidden significant debt in the past. (Andcarr (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC))

@Andcarr: I used to get really upset when people insinuated that I had a COI, but this ad hominem has become such a thought terminating cliche in today's discourse that it no longer even bothers me all that much. If you think there's an organized effort to scrub a biography, you can take the evidence to the conflict of interest noticeboard. However, you should be aware that there's a sort of diminishing returns inherent in such accusations. The more often you accuse people of being PR lackeys, the less often people will take your accusations seriously. It seems as though you have a grudge against this person; if that's the case, then you should be aware that Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or act as a soapbox. Our view of Mr. Ross is to be informed by reliable sources, not personal interactions. Forbes has nothing to say about Mr. Ross; when they publish an article that explicitly disputes his wealth, then we'll have something to report. Merely being excluded from a list does not mean anything in particular. In fact, he does seem to have been ranked in 2008, and I can add this to the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That is OK, my editing has been scrubbed before and I turned out to be right. I'll just not bother in future. In fact I will remove all my edits and others can be duped by wiki instead. What a waste of time. (Andcarr (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC))

About reliable sources for a mod

Hi NinjaRobotPirate

Thanks for notifying me of not including the right sources on the mod's wiki page. As of now I have found some gaming news websites that covered the event from ModDB. Since apparently moddb itself is not considered a reliable resource I will include the links below.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/pressreleases/233367/Presenting_the_2014_Mod_of_the_Year.php

http://thegg.net/general-news/mod-of-the-year-awards-2014-the-final-top-10/

I have also noticed that the mod is now on Steam Greenlight, so if it gets greenlighted by steam & the community, would that be considered a reliable resource?

However I find it very strange that moddb is not a viable source for everything game related. Moddb is the number 1 website for mods, and are the ones responsible for the popular yearly "Mod Of The Year" event. I mean, you can't get more "official" with providing links from the source (them).

If you're interested, and are having questions about the contest, here is the link of the community manager of ModDB, IndieDB and SlideDB that covered the Moddb event. You can always contact him if you are questioning moddb stuff: http://www.moddb.com/members/tkaza Gunslingerjh (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gunslingerjh: Yeah, Wikipedia has many counter-intuitive rules, and notability is one of the most confusing. While the Mod DB is certainly notable, it does not satisfy our criteria for a reliable source. By this, we mean a site that employs professional journalists who work under an editorial board. The thinking is that an editor will disallow a journalist from writing about inconsequential or irrelevant topics, whereas a self-published fansite or exhaustive database has no such restrictions. This gives us an impartial way to have inclusion criteria on our own site: we require someone else to have first taken note of the topic. Awards are a tricky issue, as we again need independent confirmation from reliable sources that they are noteworthy. The best way to demonstrate notability for the mod is through coverage in reliable sources. This would generally mean a review by IGN, Rock Paper Shotgun, Polygon, etc. Mod DB by itself is not enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate I think this will do, no? http://www.pcgamer.com/amnesia-mod-penumbra-necrologue-creeps-onto-steam-greenlight/ Gunslingerjh (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gunslingerjh: Yeah, that's the sort of coverage we need. If you can find a few more like that, you're golden. Generally, we look for at least two citations to reliable sources, but if you can find more than that, it would help immensely. The more in-depth they are, the better. You can see a recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rise of the Reds (2nd nomination), where several Wikipedia administrators (and me) commented about a recent article created about a popular mod. It has some relevant information that might be helpful to you with regard to notability, reliable sources, and Mod DB. I'm not an inclusionist, but even getting people to accept a redirect can be difficult at times when it comes to a lack of sourcing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate Ok thanks for the info! Will check! Looking for the second source as we speak! Gunslingerjh (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Batman as surgeon

Do you think whoever added that category might have been referring to this quote from him?

"this ain't no mud-hole, it's an operating table, and I'm the surgeon"

I tried to find some references aside from obvious metaphor. This tumblr post mentions:

Bats blows up Metallo with some explosives, then attempts to quickly remove the kryptonite from Superman’s chest while the mechanical menace reconstitutes. Unfortunately, Batman’s surgical skills are not quite fast enough, and the two are buried alive together when Metallo recovers.

I remember when that happened. Since Batman did open up supes to remove kryptonite, wouldn't that actually make him a surgeon? He's obviously no Thomas Wayne or Elliot (Hush) but he probably does have at least field-surgeon skills, kinda like Alfred, to attempt that. Ranze (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ranze: Surgeons have specific medical degrees. Does Batman have a medical degree? Also, keep in mind that categories are for defining characteristics. Doctor Strange is a surgeon. Batman is a detective. Just because he may have acted as a field medic does not make him a professional surgeon. p.s. if you're CensoredScribe (talk · contribs), then please respect your community ban. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not, I don't know who that is, the tag just seemed fine to me. That Batman used surgical skills to try and save superman and drops a self-definition of it in a major animated film seems defining. Ranze (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ranze: CensoredScribe was a disruptive user who often targeted Batman-related articles with inappropriate categories. There's a big difference between "using surgical skills" and being a licensed surgeon with a medical degree. There's a pretty solid consensus that these random "Batman did something like this once" categories are not applicable; you can see the endless drama and arguments in the archives of WT:CMC and WP:ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, thanks so much for the welcome to Wikipedia! Best, --T.w.s.hunt (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Runescape on "Permanant Death"

Runescape does belong on the list of games that feature permanant death in the "Permanant Death" article.[1] 38.65.105.242 (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/Ironman
The problem is that the game was not mentioned in the citation you added, and that's not an independent reliable source. I'll see what I can find. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Alex Gilbert

Hello NinjaRobotPirate,

Please have a look at the sources again for Alex Gilbert. The New Zealand Herald is the largest newspaper around NZ along with Television New Zealand being one of the largest TV networks in NZ. :-)

Thanks! Dmitry --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@DmitryPopovRU: Yeah, I saw. The relevant policy is WP:BLP1E. People who make the news for a single event generally don't satisfy our inclusion guidelines. At any rate, the large number of unreliable sources and primary sources are going to need to be cleaned up. I suggest that you remove all the irrelevant citations being used to cite bomb the article. For example, there's an irrelevant citation to Time Out that has nothing but link to buy a book. That does nothing to establish notability, and it's just clutter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I hope to expand this article as much as I can, the focus on this article is his story and his book etc. Thanks for your help. Dmitry - --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

He was back - not for long...

Nipped this one in the bud! Sky Broadband, dynamic, as usual. User:90.218.117.65 Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oof this one is still operating :-( Many thanks to you Ronhjones and to you NRP for continuing to deal with this problem. MarnetteD|Talk 16:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: Geez, good eye. I didn't even see him. He seems to be avoiding articles that he knows I frequent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Susan Sarandon.

Sorry for the rollback, I commented with another edit. You tag primary sources - i.e. the official website which issued the award - as a problem. Why would citing the issuer of the award be a problem? Is the official website somehow unreliable and unsuitable to list who they awarded awards to? Why would having another source state what the official source awarded make it more reliable? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: That's alright, though it was certainly momentarily very confusing. Did you read the linked discussion? Although MOS:FILM has not been updated to reflect consensus on the talk page, there is almost unanimous support for the removal of awards that a) do not have an article and b) do not have third-party coverage. The rationale was that awards that lack either are undue/spam. It's certainly a legit complaint that this is just idle chit-chat on a MOS talk page currently, but I could request an official closure at WP:AN if you want. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I skimmed it following your last post. Your reason for the template was not what you intended. Why did you tag it as "primary source" instead of the real reason? However, Kansas City Film Critics Circle has conducted itself from a professional body of critics for over 50 years. Just because something isn't developed doesn't make it not-notable or relevant in a page specifically for given awards. Though if you wish, make that claim go ahead - I think such a page could encompass it without issue. My main issue was that the unsourced page had false awards and I sourced all the awards listed to fix a BLP issue and that's where my interest wanes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@ChrisGualtieri: I'm not sure I understand. My reason for adding the template was exactly as I said: a citation directly to the awards body itself is a primary source for the award. But if you disagree, then I'm not going to waste hours on a debate about it. I'm content to move on to another page. You might consider adding your opinion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film if you feel strongly about this topic, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Re-reading my above message, I'm struck by the thought that maybe I'm not being as clear as I imagined. Third-party, secondary sources should be used. The fact that I switched from saying "third-party" to "primary" probably makes this more confusing than it needs to be. Let's just say that the consensus in that linked discussion was that awards should have third party coverage, and citations should not be to primary sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be conflating an issue that the awards themselves need to have third party coverage (for the notability of the award) and the fact that the award itself should be reported by a third party. The official body or source (the issuer of the award) is typically the best and more reliable source to state whether or not they made such an award. Also, not all third-party claims of awards are true. I've had Dani Cavallaro (a secondary source) screw up Castle of Cagliostro's award - so a secondary source does not make a claim true because it says so. If you intend to say "Sam's Award" may not be a notable award, take that issue up independently of whether or not the source for "Sam's Award" is a third-party or not. Put another way, if I cited the Oscar's website for an award instead of a newspaper, would you still have tagged it for replacement? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I would again direct you to the linked discussion. That's where you should post your debate. Since the discussion was never closed, and the MOS page was never updated, my interpretation of consensus could very well be flawed. I have vaguely held opinions on the subject, but they are not so strongly held that I am willing to debate the matter ad nauseam. Erik and Tenebrae are the guys you want to talk to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Automata ending

Hi. I saw you edited the plot for the film Automata. I looked at the ending part that said "Jacq leaves with his family for the coast," replacing my earlier edit for "Jacq, severley wounded, is driven to the remaining ocean with his family for his dying wish."

I just would like to understand what REALLY happened to Antonio Banderas' character at the end of the film (if you did watch is, that is), and if anymore edits to the plot's ending can be arranged. I watched the movie last year and I wasn't sure if his character was dying from radiation poisoning (or, if actually possible, a gunshot wound), or if he wasn't dying at all but was still "poisoned." Thnx - Theironminer (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Theironminer: You know, I'd probably have to watch that last scene again before I could really comment on it with an informed opinion. I occasionally get a few plot details wrong, as irritable IP editors are wont to tell me. But as far as I remember, his ultimate fate was left to the viewer's imagination. I don't think there was any explicit statement about whether he was dying or not despite his extended dose of radiation poisoning and gunshot wounds. Like I said, though, this is now from memory. I guess I can watch the scene again. The film is still on Netflix. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Please note that I informed the above motioned talk page. Cheers. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Cast list

Newsflash, The cast list was fine where it was at before you deleted and it should be where it was before. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: Well, if this is an official news report, I suppose that's a good reason to violate the MOS. Or maybe not. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: There are reasons for not removing large amount of actors in the cast section. Some of the movie articles have dividers in the cast sections for that propose (though of course I'm not a fan of dividers, but some of them have reasons for it). Sometimes that are actors who appeared in opening credits who are not listed in some movie articles and there some more notable actor who didn't appear in the opening credits. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Halloween

Question for you... Some guy is trying to change the running time of Halloween to 87min even though (in North America at least) it is 91 min no question. I don't want to get into edit wars with this guy and you know your stuff... Could you help out please? Appreciate it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyblaze81 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Apreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyblaze81 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My "Drive By Tagging"

I saw the message you posted on my talk page and I was going to say that the game articles that I post the missing information tags are not my strongest suite as films are my specialty which is why I placed a missing information tag on them to get people that actually know more about games and know how to expand them to work on these articles since they have not been fixed for quite some time (The individual articles on Clock Tower series is a HUGE example). As for the incomplete tags that you keep finding, I apologize, I have been trying to find all the articles I have posted incomplete tags on and it is quite difficult to find them so there might be several articles with those tags still out there. Again sorry about that.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much for helping out with the "After Hours" article! Thanks also for the suggestions, I'll do that (I'm just editing things in my sandbox for now). LaraGiux (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Marine 4

The last thing I just did was corrected a mistake that someone did after me. I phrased the summary my own way and then someone changed it and I fixed the "whistleblower" part which when I first phrased it my own way, wasn't even included. That's the last thing I did, so I did NOT copy and paste it. SJJM4EVER (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I know what you mean, but I do believe that my most recent one differed quite a bit from the official plot.But if not, then there is no possible way to really change it without it not saying anything about the plot at all as far as I can tell. SJJM4EVER (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Sir, if I may, I must comment on how fantastic and great your username is. I give you this kitten with reservations, as a kitten received freely, rather than taken by some force, would be unbecoming of a ninja or pirate, much less both.

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10 Adar 5775 06:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm sure there's some kind of waiver that can invoked for kittens, seeing as how one can never truly own a cat. In many cases, one is at best tolerated by the cat. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe the proper termionology is "enslaved for purposes of food and belly-rub provision" Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10 Adar 5775 17:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Ninth_Streets_(IND_Culver_Line). Watch the film!!!!!! Bags72 (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bags72: Yes, I know that street is in Brooklyn. You've said it several times already. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. If you see something in a film, that doesn't mean that it's real. What we need is a reliable source, such as a newspaper or magazine, that explicitly says this. I've said this several times. I don't really know how to make it more clear to you. The problem is that you're adding content to Wikipedia without a citation to a reliable source. Go to Google.com, type in goodfellas shooting locations brooklyn and find a site that is listed on WP:FILM/R. Once you do that, you can add the information to Wikipedia. You can not use the film itself as a source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, what's up NinjaRobot

Thanks for your note on the use of infoboxes in regards to languages in movies. It makes sense. Sorry, I must have been carried away by the emotional load in the things they said in this language. Gary and Winona... Great actors, aren't they? There's many languages out there yet that feel is universal. Just let me know if there's any articles that might need translation from English to Romanian or vice versa. Translating is part of my profession. Haven't done it in a long time and right now I feel like translating stuff just for fun. Vlad Ivx (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Vlad Ivx: A lot of Wikipedia's guidelines are arcane and bureaucratic, and it's nearly impossible for anyone to know all of them. I wouldn't worry too much about it. You might consider joining WikiProject Romania, a central discussion area for topics related to Romania. I'm sure there's lots of work that you could help with! You might also consider using {{babel}} to identify yourself as a fluent speaker of both Romanian and English. This can help other Wikipedians to quickly and easily find help. For example, you can see that on my user page, I added {{Babel|en|fr-1}}, which means that I speak English natively and have a basic understanding of French. Yours might say {{Babel|en-5|ro-5}}, which indicates a professional level of both English and Romanian. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent attention

Thanks for what I hope was meant to be constructive criticism. I sure you will agree there are differences in people's opinions. For example, a great many people do not know what a "rave" is. The common usage is, for example, a verb regarding exclamation. So overlinking may not always appear to be what you think it is. It appears that you are well-meaning in your comments, so I thank you for taking the time to make them. I caution you, however, that a brusque or misinterpreted diatribe may actually discourage the collaborative effort which WP is meant to be. I've been doing this a long time, too, and it's certainly with good intentions. Just because we may disagree doesn't mean that I'm wrong.--SidP (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@SidP: Well, that's why we have guidelines on this sort of thing. Disagreeing is fine, but you should probably raise your issues at the talk page of the associated guideline. We have longstanding consensus for these guidelines, and we generally do expect people to respect that consensus. Yes, my comments are sometimes a bit harsher or more brusque than I had originally intended, but if you do have questions or issues, I certainly don't mind discussing them or attempting to help you to the best of my ability. One thing you might consider is checking out User:Tony1/Build your linking skills. That's where I learned to refine my skill at linking and avoid overlinking, and Tony1's other tutorial are similarly helpful. If you run through those tutorials, it is very likely that you won't have issues with irritable MOS fans leaving you messages on your talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. --SidP (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, please review WP:LINKSTYLE regarding piping of geography. It's not overlinking as you claim.--SidP (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it can be piped, for example in this situation: "In Ohio, the city of Akron is known for whatever." In that case, you certainly would want to use a pipe. However, WP:SPECIFICLINK is pretty explicit that we shouldn't be linking to Akron, Ohio. It's all context and specific situations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

re Clickbait or valid article?

What do you think? Is this clickbait or a valid topic for an article? "The 'sex selfie stick' lets you FaceTime the inside of a vagina" from The Independent. It's a vibrator with an attached camera called the Svakom Gaga. There seems to be a growing amount of coverage for it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC) edit: Kind of weird question, I know, but I figure you're probably the best authority on controversial sex-related articles – or, at least, the first name that pops into my head! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:Certainly seems like it's got plenty of coverage at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I'd suggest you peruse some of those sources, but unfortunately I myself don't have the time right now for this one among other Quality improvement projects. — Cirt (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I'll give it a go. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter

Hi, the article on this topic defines it (correctly, I think) as "Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose and perform their own musical material including lyrics and melodies." This seems to fit Robyn Hitchcock perfectly, so I'm not totally sure why you've removed the link? I see your edit comment argues that s-s means "a specific genre" but even if it sometimes means that (perhaps recently?), that is not its only sense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I didn't remove any links. I converted "singer-songwriter and guitarist" to "singer, songwriter, and guitarist". If you look a the lead of singer-songwriter, it clearly indicates that this is a specific genre of acoustic folk music and does not describe pop singers who write their own music. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC) edit: on the other hand, I guess it's not terribly important. If you think it's relevant, I don't have any problem if you want to put it back like it was. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. I'll read a bit more of the article, but since it talks about people like Bob Dylan, definitely one of RH's inspirations, I'd have thought whatever genre it is probably includes him. I agree it's not something to start too many edit-wars and RFAs about, so I'll see if I can work out what the agreed definition is before doing anything. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: Yeah, I hate to get into all that bureaucracy, too. I have to say, I'm very glad to run into someone who leaves polite, friendly messages on a talk page instead of edit warring or whatever. It makes me feel bad for my initially curt reply. Like I said, it's not a problem if you want to change it back. I get a bit testy sometimes when I see "singer-songwriter" on wildly inappropriate articles (like heavy metal singers), and this one seems like it could actually fit. Maybe I was a bit overzealous. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries. I just found a ref. that covers both points, actually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Tagging

Works for me, although I thought the problem with the current page could be covered under the rubric of "excessively detailed". I've got no problem with the other, though. (And I must confess to a less-than-passing familiarity with tags despite all my years 'round these parts, so any guidance would be accepted most gratefully...) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I can see your point, but usually when people tag an article with {{plot}}, it's because of length issues, which means that you might end up with people who are confused about why it's been tagged. Looking over that plot summary, I'm beginning to think that it's so terrible that maybe it should just be blanked. Ugh. I don't think I could contribute a better summary, though, as I haven't seen the film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Both considerations came to my mind, also. Let me do a little digging and see if I can find a solution... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, it's not perfect, because it's not sourced, but I pulled up an old plot summary from a previous version of the page and pasted it in there, with some tweaks. Right now that's the best I can do given that I haven't seen the film, but I think it will do the trick. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ozus

Copy-edit from my talk page: "Please don't reinsert the Ozus' World reviews. The guy is posting from a self-published blog. It doesn't matter if he calls his blog a magazine or not. Without editorial control, a history of fact-checking, and preferably a professional staff, his opinions are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. If you insist, I suppose we can ask WiiProject Film for insight or go to the reliable sources noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)"

The reason for having his review is that Schwartz is given as a "external reviewer" by the Turner Classic Movies website, which is moderated. He is an author and is quoted on Rotten Tomatoes. He is also added as a source in other Wikipedia articles. e.g. Framed and Highway 301, among others. This issue has come up before and if people insist that he is not a reliable source, than off you go, start changing some more articles where he appears. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bzuk: The problem is that Rotten Tomatoes links to many, many unreliable sources, including Netflix and IMDB reviews. Just because a blogger is listed at Rotten Tomatoes means absolutely nothing. Similarly, the fact that TCM links to a blog site does not impact on its reliability. We need editorial control, a history of fact-checking, etc. There are still many reviews by unreliable bloggers on these older Wikipedia articles, and I've been going through them to fix them. Eventually, I'll get through the rest of the articles, too, but it's very slow going for a non-automated process. You really should take a look through WP:RS, as I'm a bit of a hard-ass when it comes to policy compliance. For example, the IMDB is listed as a canonical example of an unreliable source in WP:USERG, which is why I removed that citation. Sources must have a listed editorial board. If you can't find one, then it's probably not reliable source. Websites where users add the content (self-published blogs, user-generated databases, random home pages, etc) can not be used as citations on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"This is not my first rodeo" and I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that the patronizing and dismissive tone of your comments are not intended. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome and co-producers

I was under the impression that this was for executive and associate producers. Miller directed and produced it. If he hadn't had directed it, surely they would all be under "produced by"? Quentin X (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Quentin X: Honestly, I'm not entirely sure that I correctly understand all the various roles performed by the credited producers. However, my understanding is that we only list the literal "produced by" credit, as the other producers are subordinate. In the case of notable executive producers, such as Roger Corman, it makes sense to mention them in the lead. I guess we could ask WikiProject Film for guidance, but I always thought the template was fairly specific. Maybe I misunderstood it? 16:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that's the best option. I don't often see co-produced on posters so it may have been overlooked when the template was agreed on (not that I could ever see that happening.......) Quentin X (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'll post to WT:FILM and see what happens. I'll give you a ping there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Zombeavers 2

Good catch on the hoax! I remembered the name of the "director" - he's a sock of User:Aron&April654321 and User:AnthonyFernando5, so if you see anything with the name "Anthony Fernando" attached to it, it's pretty much a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: Oh, geez, this is a habitual thing? I was hoping it was a one-off. Alright, next time I won't be so cautious about labeling it a hoax. Do you think it's better to take something like this to AfD where it can be explained in context or tag it for speedy deletion? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • With this guy? Just tag it for speedy deletion and add their name to the SPI for Aron&April654321 if you see them (or add a new SPI for that user). They'd stopped for a while, but once they get started they tend to be somewhat prolific. Unfortunately. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

He made an account?

See here and here. Havename (talk · contribs) only made those two edits and they seem oddly familiar. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: After I saw a few constructive edits on Hong Kong articles, I asked Ronhjones, an admin who has handled a lot of the blocks lately, to give the vandal enough time to show that he could stop being disruptive. However, the vandal went right back to compulsive edit warring and content blanking. I don't think he can stop. Once, he reverted me so many times that it broke the notification system, and I couldn't even receive notifications for a while. So, any possible socks will probably show their true colors very, very quickly. This is one vandal who we don't need to worry about being subtle. If he creates an account, it should be blindingly obvious within days if not hours. So, I wouldn't worry too much about suspicious activity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah I understand. I'll keep an eye on this account anyway just in case. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian and the Zodiacs

I replaced the references with more reliable ones, once you see them would it be ok to remove the tag? TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 16:39, 21 April 2015

Thanks

I have Microsoft Word so I'll use that. Thanks for helping me.BrianBerta (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Phil Mason Dispute

Hello. I have written a message on the Phil Mason talk page in order to better explain my reasoning regarding my edit and our disagreement. I hope that you will read it and respond.66.211.238.179 (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sean Scanlan

The Article Rescue Barnstar
A very late barnstar for rescuing Sean Scanlan from deletion. It was an article without much reason to exist, but you improved it to be a respectable stub that now provides useful and sourced information. James086Talk 04:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Ha, people usually complain that I'm too much of a deletionist. It's good to know that sometimes people notice when I rescue an article, too. Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Problem IP editor hitting 3RR

Hi, bad faith editor you've reverted has also been reverted by me, making changes to BLP articles without discussion and proclaiming in edit summaries that their personal opinion (OR) gives them the right to remove a cited source.

Phil Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Aronzak (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

also see My talk for their WP:NOTHERE mentality. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Aronzak: Yeah, I just saw. I'm guessing this IP user won't last too much longer before he's blocked. I was going to give a 3RR warning, but it looks like you already did. In that case, the next step would probably be WP:AN3 or WP:RFPP. On the article's talk page, I already offered to tone down the wording, so I guess I'll try that. If he reverts again against consensus, we can go to AN3. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, dropping the quote may be closer to BLP and avoid the issue in future. We'll see what happens -- Aronzak (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Phil Mason

You were keen to remove my edit and happy to allow some absolute no-mark journalists opinion on a perfectly innocent guys page. I will now return the favour, let's see how quick you edit it.... I reckon 20 seconds agenda-boy. Oh look, Miss Sarkeesian's page is locked... probably by yourself. All for free speech aren't you A-pirate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.198.151.44 (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less about drama on YouTube or vendettas between YouTube users. My agenda is policy compliance on Wikipedia, which is why I watch these YouTube articles. From my experience, they tend to attract an inordinately large amount of disruption. Consensus on Talk:Phil Mason is that the source should stay, but you could try your luck at WP:BLPN if you want. That's an administrative board on Wikipedia dedicated to resolving issues of defamation and other abuses. I can help you to post a complaint there if you want. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary essay

The plot summary essay looks great. I've posted some early feedback on the article's Talk page - is that a good idea? Popcornduff (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Brian Day

Just wanted to say thanks to you for weighing in on the Brian Day page. I'm still a newbie, though I've contributed lots of small articles and edits here and there, and unsure what to do when something like this arises.

I appreciate your assistance.

Kathleen5454 17:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleen5454 (talk • contribs)

Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia

Never seen this before. It's brilliant. Although, regarding Latin: all I can say is: in loco sporenti abadabba est. (Been waiting ages to use that.)

Thanks for the nice note of support, also. It's much appreciated. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised the page isn't quoted more often. Maybe most of our fellow cynics have burnt out and left Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
That seems rather a cynical view of things, no? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Drive-By Tagging

How was I drive-by tagging?--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: Drive-by tagging involves adding cleanup tags without resolving any of the issues. If you think an article is missing information, add it yourself. It's one thing to tag unsourced statements, and sometimes I miss this when I edit an article. But tagging articles as missing information is different. It's asking another editor to fix non-technical issues that you find important enough to tag, but not important enough to fix yourself. Tagging a start class article as incomplete or missing information is bad enough, but a stub – that is beyond redundant. It's completely pointless, as stub articles are, by definition, missing information. This is why they are stub articles. For many barely notable films, especially the obscure and/or direct-to-video slasher films, there simply is no more information to be added. If you think it exists, then search for it and add it yourself. Adding redundant clean-up tags isn't going to make them get expanded any faster. For most of these articles, there are only a handful of editors who regularly work on them, and they're probably quite aware that the article is incomplete/missing information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Most of those I don't have time to do it myself and why would there be a Missing information tag unless It were used to let people know that the article is missing information and needs to be expanded?--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: Well, I guess I could nominate that template for deletion. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. There aren't that many editors active in the realm of obscure, direct-to-video, or cult horror films. I don't think tagging an article as incomplete is going to make them edit the article any faster than they would have before. If you think an article is missing information, add it yourself. It's kind of obvious that the article is missing information; the information isn't there, and it's been classified as stub or start. I don't see how a big cleanup tag improves the situation any. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right that it might not make a difference, I've seen a ton of articles that are either incomplete and missing a huge chunk of information. It's kind of stupid how some people can get away with making articles that are either unsourced or of low importance. Oh well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: According to Wikimedia's stats, there are only about 3000 editors who make 100+ edits per month. I'm one of the more active people who work in film, and I specialize in horror films. I've been trying to expand zombie films in particular. It's not easy. Most of them are terribly written articles, full of unsourced info, and there's little in the way of coverage online. I bought a few books about zombie films, and that helped. But there's still so much more to do. I'm trying to work on them, but it's slow going (as slow as a zombie). Out of those 3000 editors, how many regularly edit zombie films and slasher films? A few, probably. But I don't think there's all that many. We're trying, but it's a lot of work to expand all these articles. I'm still in the process of expanding a whole bunch of them, but I get sidetracked easily, and others are simply dead ends – there's just no information anywhere, even in those zombie books. I still need to buy a few books on slasher films, and that will help me expand those articles; but I'm just not sure that anyone is ever going to care enough to edit Rabid Grannies. I'm one of the few people who like that stupid film, and I've been meaning to expand it for years now... but even I haven't edit it once yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Same here, though I try and do some work on articles on video games and books which also are not that well developed and are unsourced sometimes. It's kind of aggravating to see articles that are unsourced and underdeveloped either by their creator or others although I do not fault others I am upset that a lot of articles and even older ones manage to escape notice and are unsourced. Some articles like The Toolbox Murders are extremely underdeveloped and are missing a ton of information. Again I do not fault the editors, its just annoying to find those kind of articles.Thanks for the input.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Chappie.

You are the one edit warring. Not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penelope37 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tarantula

The reason I placed a rewrite tag on the article is because the production section is poorly written and should be rewritten.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Film categories

Please see my response here.—DocWatson42 (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services


Metafiction: diff #670386882

Why did you revert this edit? That was the most metafictional song Skrillex has ever done. Although, there may be better external link(s). —User 000 name 00:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@User000name: Hi. I reverted it mostly because I couldn't tell why it was added. It looked like a fan of Skrillex was randomly adding links to his videos in unrelated articles. If you'd like to list it as an example of metafiction in music, then you'll need a citation to an independent reliable source, such as The New York Times or NME. It would be original research to identify it as an example of metafiction yourself. We can't just indiscriminately link to random YouTube videos every time an editor thinks they're related to the topic of an article. The article would be overwhelmed with links. Our guideline on external links is helpful on this matter. Links to random YouTube videos would be on the links to be avoided list, mostly #8 and #13 from that list. I can do a search to find reliable sources, and maybe we can figure out some way to include it in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC) edit: I changed "policy" to "guideline", because I must have gotten confused about WP:EL. Sorry about that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding the reference on the article I created! Carrie Leslie 00:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clt1985 (talk • contribs)

cult of personality

Understood, I will add the UK to the list of cults of personality once I find several reliable sources and originarl works identifying them as examples cults of personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Office worm (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Nomination of PNGOUT for deletion

Hi, re this message, just letting you know that I created this as a redirect (see edit summary on page creation), and you should consider contacting the person who actually started the article instead. --Michael Billington (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice and sorry for the edit i did to Child's Play 2 A0708458 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Help/Collaberation

Hello NinjaRobotPirate, I was wondering if you could help collaborate with me on expanding a couple of articles. I have already started on them but I will need help from someone else to help me expand them. Please let me know if you are interested.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: Sure, but I often have difficulty finding sources for obscure films released prior to 1995. Before 1985, it becomes even harder. It's not impossible, but online archives get very spotty before that, and the books that I use as a reference tend to favor the more mainstream stuff. I've got a few articles queued up for expansion, but I often get distracted by other things. I can certainly try to look at anything you suggest. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Great, I was thinking of several, but I wanted to start with Begotten first.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That's kind of a tough one for me because I haven't seen it. I'll do what I can, though. This got a bit of attention back in the day, so there should be sources available. Too bad old issues of Fangoria are so difficult to find. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It's available on youtube but you don't have to see it, I just need help with expanding the other sections for now since the plot section doesn't need to be expanded. A am still looking for dates placing when the film's development and production began. Got several interviews with the direct that I found detailing a lot of production information, will work on expanding the production section when I get those dates.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hardware (film)

I'm curious as to why you opted to revert my edit, instead of just removing the offending links and advising me of my error. I am also equally curious as to what will happen if I reinstate my edit with improved citations. Salmanazar (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Salmanazar: I reverted the edit because you linked to copyright violations, and without the citations, the content would be unsourced. If you can cite a reliable source, I won't much care. You can see a partial list of vetted sources at WP:FILM/R. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Nighthawks

Thank you for this, my friend. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Am Cjsorima10

Why You Erase My Edit for Black Death is Correct to my Edit Don't Erase under Release my edit again and fu** You and shut up Cjsorima10 (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

New Collaberation

Though this is a minor collaboration, I need some help expanding The Hideous Sun Demon a bit more, adding more reviews, and expanding production, and legacy sections as well as giving the article a better lead. Again it's only minor but I was just wondering if you would be willing to help?--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I haven't been more help. I'll see what I can do. I've been caught up in other stuff lately, and I've been battling a bit of burnout with Wikipedia. Reviews are a quick and easy part for me, so I can probably help best with that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about that, I have been busy working on making some games. Hopefully both out schedules will clear up soon so we can get back to work doing more important things on wikipedia.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Adam Green (filmmaker)

Hi,

I understand your concerns in regards to reliable sources. Historically when it comes to date of births sources are rarely wrong. For example if the source was citing negative or even positive information involved the subject a stronger source is required. In fact, the more extravagant the claim the more reliable to the source must be. However, dobs are so trivial that nearly any sources is generally correct. In the case of Adam Green, his twitter and facebook both mark that date as his birthday and I have good reason to believe it is reliable in this case. Let me know if you disagree. :) 173.72.102.21 (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not so much whether it's right or wrong. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say. If no reliable sources say something, then Wikipedia really doesn't have anything to say about that topic. Though it's an essay, WP:TRUTH explains it fairly well. You may believe that you know the truth, but Wikipedia requires both truth and verifiability through reliable sources. The IMDB is not a reliable source, and this is explicitly stated as such in the relevant guideline. If an official source, such as someone's Twitter or Facebook account list information, that's certainly useable. But you should never cite the IMDB in a biography of a living person; BLPs require high quality sources. I'm incredibly tired of arguing with IP editors over policy, however, so I'm not going to make a big deal of this. I would request that you don't use the IMDB as a source. It's frustrating for me to clean up all the errors introduced from that site. Though much of it is correct, much of it is invented by fans. I have bought books (published by academic presses) where filmmakers themselves express frustration with the invented figures from the IMDB. I think they would know better than random fans on the Internet. This is why we don't allow user-generated content, such as the IMDB. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Albert Pyun and his films

I've been working to clean up his film articles for years now and it's been horribly difficult. Pyun will constantly rv my edits and replace with poorly sourced stuff, NPOV, advertising and try to whitewash. Thanks for your help. Readyforanderson (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Readyforanderson

I noticed that there's a promotional SPA active there. Those can be very frustrating. I guess if the disruption becomes too strong, there's always WP:RFPP. I noticed a few Pyun reviews on the web recently, so maybe we can expand some of the articles. He seems to be getting more attention lately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Indian cinema - comment requested

Hi there, this is a form letter. (Aren't you special!) Since you edit around Indian cinema articles, your comments are solicited at this discussion at the Indian cinema task force. The question is: Should box office gross totals be labeled as estimates?

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

...on my recent unblock request. I promise I won't make you end up looking foolish. See you around the project. Useitorloseit (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Garrett

yes add actor back (On Joseph Garret)sense he has a filmography.Amazing to you (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that you can do this yourself now, as your account is probably autoconfirmed. That should let you edit articles that have been semi-protected. You can ask at the help desk if you have difficulties. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Highlander

Sorry that it took me so long to write you a response. I had contemplated whether or not I should respond, but I figured, why not?

Thorn EMI did finance Highlander according to this article. Indeed, the text "Thorn EMI Screen Entertainment presents" appears in the opening credits, and some trailers and posters. Cannon did not buy Thorn EMI until May 2, 1986. The film was released in America a few months earlier. Freshh! (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Freshh: I had to look up what the dispute was over. The problem is that people continually tweak the infoboxes of films, adding and removing distributors, production companies, and producers. Sometimes it's correct, sometimes it's not, and sometimes it's a hoax/vandalism. After becoming frustrated with the amount of time it was taking me to validate every unsourced, unexplained change, I started to take a more hardline approach, and that seems to be what happened to your edit. I'm certainly not opposed to changes to the article or correcting misinformation; I just want to see a source, especially when people change content that's already been sourced. Since you've got a source, that's good enough for me. I'm sorry for my curt attitude. After enough hoaxers and vandals rampage through your watchlist, it's difficult to always remain as polite and patient as you would like to be. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding MOS guidelines

Hi I've been noticing some film production sections are getting really unweildy and I thought you might enjoy contributing to my discussion about brainstorming updates to the MOS:Film to address these. The discussion is located here --Deathawk (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'M not a PLOT BLANKER

STOP! WHY ARE YOU HUNTING ME DOWN! I'M NOT A F#3#IN PLOT BLANKKIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B107:49FE:F0C9:D67C:AA66:F82A (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you delete paragraphs without summarizing them. Do you understand this? What would happen if I removed half the words from your message: "STOP! ARE YOU DOWN! A BLANKIRE!!!!!" It doesn't make sense any more, right? Well, that's what you're doing to plot summaries. If you can't figure out how to streamline plot summaries without making them incoherent, then your edits need to be reverted. It is better that a plot be too long than incoherent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree NRP. I learned very early on that incoherent plots will be deleted and blanking plots will be reverted. I don't know why this guy is so upset about this but that't just the way it is.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary?

I noticed that you added to his LTA page that he made an edit summary; do you have a diff? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: Indeed I do: diff. Of course, it was a personal attack. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Well that was lovely! ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! I just noticed that our friend had actually edited a heading on my Talk page. Amusing. --Macrakis (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw that! I'm honestly surprised that he's avoided an indefinite block this long. Well, he's certainly nearing the end of the community's patience. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 10#File:Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch Wildside.jpg

I decided to nominate the European image for deletion after "no consensus" in the talk page. --George Ho (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Responding to your critique in re: Maggie (2015 film) plot summary

As per your guidance this evening and the style guides you provided, I have re-edited the plot summary in the above-referenced article to conform to Wikipedia norms. I hope that you will find it much improved (i.e. much streamlined). Thanks, and keep up the good work. Elessarrex (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Elessarrex: Great job! Many people don't realize how much work it takes to write a plot summary, especially when you're trying to streamline them down to within guidelines. I hope that you continue to edit Wikipedia, as we can always use more people who are willing to work on plot summaries. There are so many to write, and so many to streamline. It's a daunting task. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Posner's God's Bankers

Hi, NinjaRobotPirate,

First, let me thank you for your corrections to my recent update to the God’s Bankers section on Gerald Posner’s page. As you can see I am still learning how to edit on Wikipedia. So, before I make another mistake, let me first ask your advice. The following link goes directly to the National Archive document which confirms that the 'Nogara' mentioned in Reme’s Interrogation Report is a town and not a person. This document is mentioned in The Tablet report to which I referred, but this link is not included in it. So, my question is: can I include this link just after the reference to The Tablet report in Wikipedia, or would this count as original research?

https://images.nationalarchives.gov.uk/assetbank-nationalarchives/action/viewAsset?id=60214&index=1&total=2&view=viewSearchItem

Many thanks, Pmg1000 (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Pmg1000: Honestly, I did very little. I'm pretty familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and that lets me do copy edits of other people's work. Many of my edits consist of nothing more than pushing prose more toward our guidelines and policies. In this case, the relevant policy would be primary sources in biographical articles. Wikipedia's definition of a primary sources would include public documents, such as government reports. However, there is a provision to allow primary sources that have already been analyzed by secondary sources, such as newspapers. As long as you personally do not analyze the primary source, it would be allowable. For example, if a secondary source says, "The document includes a date," but it doesn't report the date or any analysis of the date, you could cite the primary source to include the date. For example, "The document includes a date:<ref>secondary source</ref> 1942.<ref>primary source</ref>" You couldn't say, "The document includes a date:<ref>secondary source</ref> 1942, which proves the charge is false.<ref>primary source</ref>". This is because the secondary source hasn't analyzed the primary source and come to the conclusion; the conclusion is yours alone, even though the secondary source did highlight the date. I hope that makes sense. As long as a secondary source makes any conclusion, that's the important part. When we personally make the conclusion, it violates Wikipedia's policy of no original research. This is to protect both ourselves and the subjects of biographical articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, NinjaRobotPirate, Thank you for this information. I have read it very carefully and inserted a link to the document cited by The Tablet, but not analysed by me. I hope I have done this correctly. Pmg1000 (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Copy-pasting

So in order for those pages of the movies seem legit, what can I do? Writing something original? Looking for information not from IMDB? I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:FB7C:6E01:CC38:8FDE:8C37:88F0 (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two major issues here:
  • Copy-pasting information into Wikipedia. Some works on the Internet are public domain or freely licensed. Wikipedia is an example of a work that's freely licensed. Most very old works are under the public domain, such as books published in the 19th century. However, most works on the Internet are under a more restrictive copyright. You must obey their licenses, and most of them do not allow you to paste their content into Wikipedia articles. You have to summarize the information in your own words.
  • Reliable sources. Wikipedia depends on sites that have editorial control. Sites like the IMDB are user-generated, especially the trivia pages. This means that the content has no editorial control, and it may very well have been invented by a hoaxer or wishful thinking by a fan. We can't use this content for citations. Fan sites and other non-professional websites are often, but not always, unreliable. You can see an incomplete listing of vetted sources at WikiProject Film's Resources.
The best thing to do is to read through Wikipedia's help pages: Wikipedia:Copyright violations, Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, Wikipedia:Plagiarism, and Wikipedia:Non-free content. It's a lot of reading, but it will answer most of your questions. If you have questions, you can ask them at the tea house or the help desk. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faster2010

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faster2010. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Skilled group

please update page — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Pizzon Lamb (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. I've been trying to avoid Skilled Group drama, but it doesn't look like anyone else has the page on their watchlist. I'll update the page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


the board members are for PRG... just called info centre as per ASX site

A Pizzon Lamb (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You may be able to do this yourself in a few hours, but I don't think this is a correct edit. The official web site lists the board, and they are not the same as what you listed for PRG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


http://www.smh.com.au/business/skilled-group-ceo-angus-mckay-steps-down-as-mining-downturn-bites-20150804-girike.html

it is a correct edit

ASX site is uptodate.

A Pizzon Lamb (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

List of films featuring time loops

I don't want to call anyone by name yet, but an editor has removed the films 12 Monkeys, Primer, and Looper, those were all sourced and are definitive time loop films, I was wondering if you could revert to this version, but only if you feel it is better. I do not necessarily believe in Timecop being on there though. Valoem talk contrib 00:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Valoem: Yeah, without looking, I'm pretty sure I know who you mean. It looks like this is currently being discussed at RSN, more-or-less, and maybe we can get it resolved there. I'm trying to find solid, unassailable sources that will bring back the removed films, but it's slow-going, I hate drama, and I don't want to debate with people over every source. I don't think we should enforce any particular definition of what a time loop is, and I don't think we should be removing films that fail one specific definition. But consensus is consensus, I guess. The people at WP:FILM are usually wise and knowledgeable about policy, and maybe it would be good to alert them to any discussions that get stalled. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
He attempted a bold merge after opening a discussion with reasonable time given, then AfDed which turned overwhelmingly against him.. All this is fine of course. But removing sourced entries claim source are invalid and then removing your solid Wired source does bother me. To remove Looper, Primer and 12 Monkeys defining time loop films show a lack of understanding in the subject and a lack of source finding. The editor created three articles in eight years he could have created a dozen articles and sourced all those films three times over with the amount of work he put into that chart on the talk page. Two editors reverting him is a way of showing consensus is strongly against his removal. If you agree and revert to that version he won't be able to revert again. I can take over then :). Valoem talk contrib 09:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We'll Meet Again

Hi, I was surprised this film was deleted ,do you think the decider was right to ignore ip opinion because he said it was a coi issue.Do you agree it was a coi.I'm just trying to learn from it 81.131.121.13 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you're talking about Till We Meet Again (2015 film), which was deleted after this deletion discussion. It was also deleted after this discussion. Due to the conflict-of-interest editing and reliance on primary sources, I think it was reasonable to delete this article, but I didn't feel very strongly about it. You might contact Spartaz and request that the article be restored to Wikipedia's draft area, which seems quite reasonable. People could work on it there without it being deleted. If Spartaz is too busy, you might ask Tokyogirl79 or MichaelQSchmidt, both of whom are admins active in this area. I can't help you, though, as I'm not an admin. Another idea is to pursue deletion review. You could ask that Spartaz's close be overturned in favor of "no consensus", which would default to restoring the article. This seems unlikely, though, after it was already deleted once before. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed information and advice.I've asked MichaelQSmith if it can be moved to draft space.I am not connected to the article but voted keep in the afd and would like to try and improve it.87.127.113.154 (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Fire Down Below

Thanks for the heads up. I'm always trying to do my best when it comes to sharing info about the films but there are times when i always end up messing up something. Now, regarding Fire Down Below production info, i actually did find one web site/article which mentions the budget of the film and studio cuts but honestly, i think it was even more unreliable than IMDb, so i think we can both agree that re-posting the info would be useless until some reliable source is found. I did managed to find this article which goes little bit into production of the film and mentions couple deleted scenes so if you could do something about it, go right ahead;

http://enquirer.com/columns/samples/1997/09/091197_ks.html

Once again, thanks for your help and i apologize for making a mistake. Andrew Ryder (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

== Chappie

The Sources aren't sourced. It's just on a random web page. You are the one edit warring. This is embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penelope37 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Movie review citations

Hi, I received a message from you this morning, concerning two review citations I added this morning. Here is an exchange I had with NottNott this past month.

quoted text; click "show" to expand

"Hi, my name is Paul Mavis. Apparently, several critical reception additions I made to pages were removed as "spam." I'm not sure why that would be. I write for an accredited review site (DVD Talk). I'm a published film historian (The Espionage Filmography, McFarland), as well as a ten year member of the Online Film Critics Society. Many of the pages I added to, had no other citations for critical reception. I was only trying to expand the articles. I don't see how that would be "spam," particularly on articles that have multiple other critic citations. Any help you could give me understanding these cuts would be helpful. Thanks!72.240.137.150 (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC) 

   @72.240.137.150: To be honest, given the history of your site I'm surprised they're entirely removed as well - perhaps I should have questioned the IP editor more.

   At the same time, check out WP:WEIGHT. If we look at an edit like SpongeBob, You're Fired!, a quote of that length would be too long for any source. I can understand that you'd want to get extra traffic to your site, and that's fine considering how potentially useful your site could be - but it's got to be more subtle. A review for the episode compilation wouldn't belong on a single episode review. On another edit like Thunderball, all you'd have to write is DVD Talk said that "Thunderball is the apex of the 'classic Bond' cycle of films.", and that's fine.

   Your site is definitely WP:RELIABLE and is great for a reception section. But if you take a more prominent source like The Guardian, any time they're referenced in an article they'll only get a sentence max.

   My suggestion to you would be to try revising your edits to a couple of movie pages, and tell me so that I can peer review it. Believe it or not, it's a tricky situation as most editors would agree your sources are valuable and improve a page, but we don't want to permanently scare you away by performing a mass revert like has just happened. If I can review a few edits after telling you this and they're fine, you're welcome to add your site to articles as you'll now know how to do it properly.

   I do want to insist that if you have any questions please let me know and I'd be happy to answer them. And in general, nice site! I love how some of the reviews like this one even go into the technical details of the DVD you're watching. Thank you Face-smile.svg NottNott talk|contrib 10:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.137.150 (talk)

Hi there. To make your comment more readable, I modified it a little bit by putting the quoted text in a collapsible box. I have cited your reviews in the past, so it's nothing against you. The problem is that we've had unethical people who've spammed Wikipedia for their own profit. I'm glad you're working on improving articles at Wikipedia, but, at the same time, I would suggest in the kindest way possible that maybe you let other people add your reviews. It's a bit more proper. Don't worry; I'm working my way through a lot of obscure articles that need more sources, and I often source them to sites like DVD Talk. There's nothing wrong with adding a few of your reviews, but you should be aware that if you go crazy (like adding several dozen of your own reviews in one day), you'll probably get a lot of angry messages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

JeremyCarl, the plot blanker?

Do you think JeremyCarl (talk · contribs) is the IP plot blanker? I haven't taken the time to see if he's cutting plots appropriately, but I will soon. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: That was my first thought, but I think maybe he just likes concise plot summaries. Looks fine to me. Back five years ago, I did that a few times before I realized that maybe I was taking my love for minimalism a bit too far. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
He's cutting too much in some cases; we don't need the plot summaries that short in those cases, especially if they lose important detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: Yeah, that's possible. I admit that I haven't paid extremely close attention to his edits. I was afraid I would get irritable if I read them too closely. I read through a few, and they still seemed intelligible enough to me, so I let it go. That's kind of why I don't read certain articles; I don't want to know how screwed up they are, because then I'd feel compelled to spend weeks fixing them. Blissfully ignorant, that's my new motto. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC) edit: I left him a talk page message and pointed him to the cleanup category. Maybe he'll move on from editing plot summaries that are already within limits, like I did. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for contacting him on his talk page about this; I was hoping you would do so, since you have a good way of getting the point across on these plot matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
When I first joined Wikipedia, I just wanted to edit plot summaries, preferably cheesy exploitation films with lurid titles. I sometimes feel that all this other stuff is a distraction. But I guess the BLP violations must be cleaned up, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
By "all this other stuff," you mean Wikipedia in general? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, well, there are other fun things, too. But creating articles and writing plot summaries are certainly more fun than dealing with disruptive editors. After a few rounds of trying to explain why original research is forbidden, I want to retreat to something a bit more relaxing, like writing a better plot summary for Rabid Grannies. Unfortunately, I think I need to rewatch that first. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


Thanks.

Hi, just wanted to say a quick thanks for alerting me to unknown change of user page. Thanks Again. --Mr.Luther34-- 11:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Laugh

Your comment me laugh. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NinjaRobotPirate/Archive2015&oldid=1188561061"