This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I am not sure how closely you read the article you reverted - but the current (reverted) version now cites "The Journatic Journal" as its primary source. The version I updated took it out of that (essentially) Journatic-authored state (look at the citations) - "^ a b c d e f Joyce Cunningham, "The Survival of the Newspaper Business", The Journatic Journal, Accessed 18 Apr 2013)" I posted about these changes before I made them over a month ago. Nobody seemed interested in discussing them. At this point, if it is repetitive, then it makes more sense to edit rather than to revert to something essentially authored by Journatic themselves (which is original research and self promotion). I don't think Poynter is being "obsessive" because they wrote 10+ articles on the issue (as did the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune). So, I am not sure where you saw original research. It was all cited. It's not my opinion that this company was involved in a number of scandals. All of the articles cited on the top of the Talk page (repetitive or not) clearly define the scandal...which actually is a big part of their short life as a company. If the articles on enron, anderson consulting, lehman brothers, anglo irish bank, bernie madoff have sections on malfeasance / scandal - why shouldn't journatic? So, which is more encyclopedic - citing the "Journatic Journal" or the Chicago Tribune, Poynter, Crains Chicago Business, Chicago Sun-times, etc...? Anyway, the point is that the baseline article that should be edited is my last version (and whatever is repetitive can be removed)...not the one written by / citing Journatic, which is not much more than self promotion. I do not want to revert again because of the "three revert rule" - but the current version is not encyclopedic at all. It's just journatic's PR material retyped. ApolloLee (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
TL;DR. Two words: ARTICLE TALK. Revert to an earlier version before the bias you see, then. My points stand. My talk page isn't the place for this. --Lexein (talk)
Lexein, thanks for your efforts at Talk:Journatic. It may not be proper for me to interject myself there, but obviously non-neutral material is not going to make it into Wikipedia. I wish there were some way to require editors to use common sense. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't expect tremendous progress until some time has passed. Early on as an editor, I hated having my work reverted, even with calm explanations, and I stayed mad for months. That's why I'm trying to help, esp. after sorta losing it on the guy. --Lexein (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Follow-up: Proposed Edits to Chevron Page
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello there, Lexein. I'm following up on your comments from earlier in the year re: the Ecuador section of the Chevron Corporation page. I've have posted another round of proposed revisions to my Sandbox. User:Chevron_justinh/sandbox. When you have a moment, would you mind taking a look and, if they language contained in the revisions is agreeable, perhaps look to revise the currently outdated and inaccurate section? Talk:Chevron_Corporation
Orphaned non-free media (File:Reformationalbum.jpg)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:Reformationalbum.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikignome
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Lexein. I was just thinking about if I knew any Wikignomes that would be interested in renaming an article where the company changed names and I remember you mentioned you were a Wiki-Gnome. Is this kind of stuff something you'd be interested in helping with from time-to-time? CorporateM (Talk) 15:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Howdi I was looking at some recent stuff on this. Listing in Academy Database and Aint it cool news review.
Not sure the notability level is up there, but its some interesting stuff that may need to be added, thought I'd run it by you first see what you thought, you have a more balanced perspective then I. Jzesbaugh (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The review sounds good to add to reception, avoiding Harry's usual extravagant overpraise for all things SciFi. I can't see the oscars page for some network reason. Will look later. --Lexein (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Weird link is solid on my end, they seem to keep a database of all contending movies for each year, it just seemed to me that if the Film Academy is calling this it's own independent movie, it begs in my mind the question, why is wikipedia not. With respect who is the highest authority on what makes a film its own thing, wikipedia, or the American Film Academy? I ask you because I respect your interest in neutrality, because this film is currently posted as part of several unrelated films, and none of the reviews indicate anything about older films this production company has made with similar titles. It's in my mind almost like putting ghostbusters, and ghostbusters 2 on the same page, since they involved similar concepts and elements. Listing in Academy Database I threw some other reviews of the film on the talk page
Bloody disgustingMay 29, 2013 Indicates film has "golden age movie stars" in footage
Curious about the notability on these.
Jzesbaugh (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The Academy database source looks ok for cast verification. The youwoncannes review seems decent, though hardly a well known reviewer. The last two "reviews" are pitifully short: useless, really, and an insult to blogging. Trolling for traffic, I think.
To answer your question, "wikipedia" put them together to avoid deletion, and because True Story was certain to receive additional coverage in a reasonable time frame, though at the time, not enough independent, well established, reliable sources covered the new film. There will be resistance from some editors to separating the articles, but I think it's reasonable to separate them in a month; more sources will surface by then I think. --Lexein (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Cool, yah the one that is a non movie review the science and astronomy one seemed questionable, that's pretty much why I'm not posting or doing anything at this time. Other then, well I'll just ask Lexein. I'll keep you up to date on anything new I see. The Academy issue I was just speaking of more broadly, because it's not currently a listing for any independent or commercial film help justify a wiki post, i think its two notable review articles or some other notable factor, I thought from a broader perspective it was an interesting concept to bring up to a Sr. editor on this site, yourself. It may be an issue for another day, but in a sense the intent was to bring it up as a broader idea, since only films that meet very difficult criteria can be listed on the academy site, it may be worth noting in the section about what quailfies for an article for a motion picture to have a site. Does that make sense. Cheers Jzesbaugh (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
On another note the political landscape of wikipedia is somewhat facninating, and I would be curious to learn more about it, is there much writing on the development of the culture in this place, the politics, and controversies that arise, having only spoken with you briefly and a few others, the whole story is interesting, in some respect the flame wars, and competing powers, the judicial system thats arisen, and simply just the culture and how things get done. I may end up researching this a bit more, but was curious on the unrelated topic, of has anyone written in detail how this culture works, sorry to go off topic, but its facinating to see people who work in this environment, and choose to deal with all the crap, for the sake of well, making a really cool tool for humanity, and making sure it does not suck. Jzesbaugh (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Can't ... stay ... annoyed ... must ... try ... gahhhh. Too late. Thank you. I like bunnies very much. Even though they chew up all my cords. --Lexein (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, again. Sorry to bother you, but another photo (more like a new set of photos) has been found and uploaded, and added to the choices in the discussion. A new issue is which photo those who participated before that photo was added would have favored had they seen it, so I'm requesting that all those who did so view the photo and indicate whether or not their favored photo has changed. Thanks, I really appreciate. Nightscream (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your attempts to abide by proper etiquette governing consensus discussions. Please be advised, however, that Canoe1967 has reverted the article again, removing the old photo from the Infobox, and claiming in his edit summary, "bold neutral edit, no image until consensus". This is false. The standard procedure during consensus discussions is for the article to remain in the last stable version until the discussion is concluded. I have contacted three admins that I am acquainted with to request that they block him, as I've had it with Canoe, and never can tell when a given admin will respond. However, if Canoe touches that photo one more time before consensus is reached, I will protect the article again, and block him personally, involved admin or not. I am not letting him take control of the article under the false guise of "neutrality", nor let him engage in edit warring while he hypocritically accuses others of doing the same. I just thought you might like to know. Nightscream (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
And thank you for asking other admins to step in. I would have thought others would have locked the article a bit quicker than that. Sheesh. I tried on IRC and got called silly for requesting that another admin take over the lock. I agree that Canoe1967 is way out of line. By not blocking him personally, you're taking the high ground, and I approve of that wholeheartedly. --Lexein (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Addendum: I still have a bone to pick with your habit of slamming the margin to the left, not respecting in-discussion indentation. Your massive text blocks, slammed to the left margin, are tremendously disruptive to discussion flow, as well as !vote counting. Everybody else respects indented discussion, why not you? I imagine you were just economizing effort by consolidating many responses, as is done in the more formal disciplinary processes, but this is just a standard photo discussion, not a formal process, so lefttextblock responses just don't belong. To impose them smacks of arrogance, and I just don't think admins should throw their weight around, even in small ways. Sorry, that's how I feel. Now, of course, I fear retribution by you, since you're an admin, but I shouldn't because in discussions, you're an editor just like me. But I'm just too goddamn annoyed to let it go any more. Annoyed by User:Canoe1967, of course, and by you, and for the first time ever, by User:Anna Frodesiak. Nothing Anna has ever done has ever annoyed me before this photo discussion, and it's a little sad to see this discussion going off the rails in such fits and starts. Just sayin'. Stop with the margin slamming. --Lexein (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I promise not to annoy you again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean by text blocks? And I'm not following my "slammed to the left margin". Can you clarify? As far as indentation, that's why I've been doing: Indenting to the right to make each person's message easier to discern at a glance. I apologize if it did not have the organizational effect I intended. Nightscream (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
You're joking, right? Please don't pretend] not to know what I'm talking about. Your response here, 13:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC), is an example of not respecting existing indentation, as if your reply deserves more attention than all the other replies. Your responses shown in the images to the right have a large block of text, slammed to the left margin, not respecting existing indentation or threading. This is not a formal process, so this format is not required or helpful, and it is in fact disruptive, as I've mentioned. --Lexein (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Huh. User:Nightscream, I thought not: no response. Your comment style goes against long-standing agreed-upon discussion practices at Wikipedia: your lack of respect for comment thread indentation, formatting your responses at the left margin to force a break in discussion by other editors, your persistent long quoting of other editors' comments, and your consolidation of responses to multiple other editor comments. I'm not the only editor who has asked you to knock it off. This is to advise you that I'll be bringing this up with other administrators, in an effort to get you to adjust your behavior, so as not to be so disruptive. Please note what I'm asking: don't outdent when there is obviously room to respond in-thread, don't persistently quote other editor's remarks (it takes them out of context), don't color their quotes like links, don't respond in one place to statements made in multiple places (the mere gathering of remarks does not make them more coherent); instead, just place your responses in the thread along with other editors, even if that requires you to place responses in several places, rather than just one massive text block. --Lexein (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I did not know what you were talking about, hence my message above. Please do not presume to know my state of mind, or to lob false accusations against me. The images you posted do clarify it, though that doesn't make your statements any less unfounded. And as far as your "no response" remark, well, I'm not sure what you're assuming here, but contrary to your narcissistic mindset, I don't keep the talk pages of every editor I communicate with on my Watchlist. I instead leave it up to them to respond on my talk page, a practice you should be well aware of, given your remark about "long-standing practices". While some editors do prefer to keep threads on their talk pages, others respond on the other editors' page. Why you indicate that you're not aware of this, I don't know. The only reason I even remembered that I had spoken to you, or that you had stated to something to me was because I got a notice at the top of my talk page. As for your complaints...
There is nothing about my commenting style that is against any "long-standing agreed upon discussion practices". Each editor has their own way of composing their messages, and you have zero authority to tell me how to compose mine.
I indeed indent my messages to the right, but when the last message above mine is indented sufficiently to the right, say two or three or more spaces, then I start over at the left. Everyone does this, and is not called "slamming".
I quote other editors' comments when I feel it important to direct my responses to the specific statement I'm responding to, so that others who read my messages will understand the content in which my response is being made. How you figure that it takes things out of context, I have no idea, but that's bunk. I sometimes format the quoted statement in boldface, sometimes in italics, and sometimes in color, in order to enhance that clarity. None of my colored quoted look like links, since the shades of blue are distinct. There is no policy, guideline, consensus or anything against this. If you can point to some policy or guideline page that says I can't do this, then please do so.
I am not breaking up the thread, nor breaking up other editors' comments, by inserting my responses inside them, or at multiple points in the thread. This is obnoxious, particularly given that some editors don't like it, and makes it difficult to follow the continuity of each person's response. I don't like it when others' break up my messages by inserting theirs inside mine, so I'm certainly not going to do that myself, and I often end up asking editors to put their responses at the bottom of the thread, and if necessary, to quote the statement of mine they're responding to. How you manage to get this backwards, I don't know, but you're not forcing anyone else to accept your screwed-up messaging style as some dogmatic standard. Nightscream (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Nightscream, this is ridiculous. You outdented again, as if indentation and threading doesn't matter to you. I was talking about user talk pages and article talk pages, like Talk:Rick Remender, obviously. The reason to reply in thread is to add to the discussion, to the point under discussion. The reason to start over at the left margin is if you don't care about the ongoing discussion, and want to call attention to you starting the discussion over. This is disruptive. The fact that you're an admin makes it doubly offensive and obnoxious. I never brought up messages "inside" other messages: you did. You act as if you just don't know how threaded discussion works, and I don't believe that. So, I'm left with the only remaining possibility, that you're deliberately being disruptive. For an admin to do that is doubly offensive, and it should stop. I haven't made any false accusations, as anyone who examines the edit history will see. You're wrong that "say two or three or more spaces" is the normal place to start over on the left. Most editors respect threading until it's quite far to the right, then they indicate that they're continuing on the left, using the {{outdent}} template. But you already know that. There's nothing "screwed up" about my messaging style: it's you that is plopping giant blocks of text on the left, against everyone else's threaded discussion. Oh, and I never once mentioned your state of mind. I've been telling you what your messages look like, and how they bother not only me, but other editors, who have complained to you as well. --Lexein (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "outdenting". The purpose of indenting is to make each editor's message distinctive from the others at a glance. When a message is indented sufficiently to the right, the next editor may start over again from the left. How far to the right the previous messages should be is obviously going to be a matter of preference among different editors. Where you get the idea that starting off your message from the left is some type of infraction or transgression, but in the 14 or so years that I've been on the Web, and the eight and a half years I've been on Wikipedia, you are the first to treat left-aligned messages as some type of crime, and to employ such irrational histrionics over this. Starting messages at the left does not "start the discussion over", it does not go "against" other editors' messages, it does not harm threading, and it si not "offensive", except in your imagination. This practice is widely used all over Wikipedia, and you have failed to back up your claims with anything that indicates that they are "long-standing agreed upon discussion practices", despite the fact that I gave you an opportunity to do so.
I haven't made any false accusations...Oh, and I never once mentioned your state of mind. Bullshit. You accused me of being disingenuous when I made it clear that I initially did not understand what your complaint was about. You're in violation of WP:AGF, and I'm done wasting my time with you. Nightscream (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, User:Nightscream, although the content of your comments is not in dispute (by me), your deliberate format and your deliberate placement is at issue. Your error is assuming that the way you do things is automatically right, or helpful, or commonly agreed upon. Your claim that there's no such thing as outdenting is laughable - if it doesn't exist, then you should XfD {{outdent}} and see what happens. I invite you to review how your comments look in context, everywhere you have committed them, and tell me there's nothing odd or obnoxious about them. You can't, because you know I'm right. I have millions of article and user talk page comments as examples against your behavior, you have . . . nothing to defend your comment style and placement. You just throw your weight around, and that's just not on as an administrator. It's interesting that you characterize your behavior as a "crime" - I never used that word: you did. I have more than one editor asking you not to compose messages in the style you do, in the format you do. Your "arguments" are void. You know I'm right in asking you to respect threading and indentation, and even to use {{outdent}} to show that you aren't breaking threading; your refusal is telling, and proof of your intention to be disruptive. And you were, and are, and continue to do so, even as editors ask you to stop. Good luck with that. --Lexein (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Reformationalbum.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
