Curly Turkey (talk | contribs) |
Darkknight2149 (talk | contribs) →I didn't think you would have the balls to so blatantly violate WP:CANVASS: Removing this laughably dead-end false accusation from my Talk Page so I don't have to look at it. It's a shame it must pollute my archive. |
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
Secondly, I added the citation to the sentence you took off for the Scott Snyder page. It was in the recent Love is Love comic. I initially didn't put it in because I was in a hurry and it was a small detail, but it's there now. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Meleemaster428|Meleemaster428]] ([[User talk:Meleemaster428#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Meleemaster428|contribs]]) </small> |
Secondly, I added the citation to the sentence you took off for the Scott Snyder page. It was in the recent Love is Love comic. I initially didn't put it in because I was in a hurry and it was a small detail, but it's there now. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Meleemaster428|Meleemaster428]] ([[User talk:Meleemaster428#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Meleemaster428|contribs]]) </small> |
||
: {{Re|Meleemaster428}} You didn't [[WP:CS|cite]] the Two-Face claim either. Keep in mind that you have to find a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that isn't just reporting on the original unverified Tweet. '''[[User:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">Dark</span>]][[User talk:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:black;">Knight</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">2149</span>]]''' 21:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC) |
: {{Re|Meleemaster428}} You didn't [[WP:CS|cite]] the Two-Face claim either. Keep in mind that you have to find a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that isn't just reporting on the original unverified Tweet. '''[[User:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">Dark</span>]][[User talk:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:black;">Knight</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">2149</span>]]''' 21:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
== I didn't think you would have the balls to so blatantly violate [[WP:CANVASS]] == |
|||
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly "the jerk" Turkey]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> [[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 01:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== ''{{lang|fr|Denouement}}'' == |
== ''{{lang|fr|Denouement}}'' == |
Revision as of 00:50, 12 January 2017
March 2014 – December 2015 |
Remember
If I don't respond immediately, I am probably busy. If that is the case, I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
Lego Batman Movie Edits
What do you mean Disruptive edits & Copy & Paste for The Lego Batman Movie? I made that Summary a while ago & it was'nt no Copy & Paste, thought it was fitting since it was Paraphrase. That did not match the Summary I made, and the Other? It was confirmed by the director of the Film, verified or Not with a back-up source.
No Offense but you really need to stop going overboard with your edits & the Policies. I thank you for the Justice League Action Article edits with the undos but the fact a Paraprhased summary with a linked Source was changed by some Fanboy (Not You of course) draw the Line. Just let me Do all the Work & you be you know, yourself with free time. ZeEnergizer (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @ZeEnergizer: I don't see how I have gone overboard at all. If it seems like I came off a bit strong, it's because of the fiasco that took place at the Two-Face article (where one editor even admitted to copying sources from other people). As for the back up sources, they all link back to the unverified Twitter account. I've even actively searched for some usable source and have been unable to each time. Right now, my fingers are crossed that they release a cast list.
- Regarding the summary, I found an identical one at the entertainment news site HeyUGuys. I didn't just look at it and assume "well, this must be stolen". Likewise, I've been seeing a lot of copy-and-paste summaries being used for articles on upcoming films, which means that many people are genuinely unaware that we don't do that. If your summary came first though, it shouldn't be an issue. DarkKnight2149 21:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- That Explains alot but I see. As for the Summary, I made that months ago when the trailers came out. Then that source took said Summary & copied it Perfectly. Though here is what I would do for the Confirmation for Billy Dee Williams' Reprisal for Two-Face. Ask him on his Verified Twitter, then it's Cemented. An Example that his Account had favorited tweets that has his Involvement. Between You & I, I knew that Williams would finally be Harvey from the moment the Lego Batman Movie Utilized the what could've been, the 1989 Version of Two-Face. ZeEnergizer (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Good idea. I'll probably try to ask Billy Dee Williams on Twitter when I get the chance. DarkKnight2149 03:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Awesome. Anyways Happy New Year's Man. ZeEnergizer (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @ZeEnergizer: Happy new year. DarkKnight2149 22:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Awesome. Anyways Happy New Year's Man. ZeEnergizer (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Good idea. I'll probably try to ask Billy Dee Williams on Twitter when I get the chance. DarkKnight2149 03:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Page
I would like to discuss something here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.255.128 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- @2.86.255.128: Replied at the discussion. DarkKnight2149 22:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I heard you've been removing episode summaries to the [[List of Ultimate Spider-Man episodes|episodes of Ultimate Spider-Man because it wasn't full enough. If you would like, you can re-add the episode summaries in your full summary way. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Rtkat3: There have been a few reasons that I have removed summaries from that page. The most common and uncontroversial are the ones for episodes that hadn't aired yet. I also removed a few summaries for being written in the form of teasers (example: "Spider-Man and his amazing friends must work to save the world" is not how summaries are supposed to be written).
- As for the incomplete summaries that you mention, those were removed because they only serve to set up what happens in the episode, instead of explaining everything that occurs in the episode with a beginning, middle and end. See List of Gotham episodes or Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3) as a reference for how to write episode summaries. WP:SPOILER also explains that Wikipedia doesn't really recognise spoilers, which I suspect may be the reason people are writing incomplete summaries. DarkKnight2149 22:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Edits
I know you have a problem with anyone who tries to mention Billy Dee Williams as Two-Face in the Lego Batman Movie, hence why I simply put that he was in the movie rather than say who he's voiced by, but apparently you have a problem with that too even though Two-Face has been seen in both the trailers and posters for the movie itself. Be calm and specific with what you want rather than threaten to kick me off, it's not like all I do is try to bug you at Two-Face's page around here.
Secondly, I added the citation to the sentence you took off for the Scott Snyder page. It was in the recent Love is Love comic. I initially didn't put it in because I was in a hurry and it was a small detail, but it's there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meleemaster428 (talk • contribs)
- @Meleemaster428: You didn't cite the Two-Face claim either. Keep in mind that you have to find a reliable source that isn't just reporting on the original unverified Tweet. DarkKnight2149 21:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Denouement
The ANI closed before I could respond to this. Maybe you're right about CT's needling of you, and the closer did tsk-tsk at him about his tone. Like me, he can be a forceful arguer. Re "All of the evidence I have provided demonstrates Curly Turkey's disruptive attempts to undermine the opposition and have the discussion go in his favour": I'm not really sure what that means. You mostly were addressing civility issues and defending against the canvassing claim, without much addressing CT's actions aside from those two things, so far as I noticed. Anyone in a debate has a tendency to "undermine the opposition and have the discussion go in his favour"; that's kind of what debate is. The only difference is you're alleging that he's "disruptive" about it, but I don't see a demonstration of that. If you mean personally attacking, not out-debating, when you say "undermining", I don't think things like the basement joke have an undermining effect; it's not the kind of comment anyone takes seriously, even if it wasn't super-polite. I reiterate that he's a comics guy too; any mocking characterization a comics fan makes about the nature of stereotypical comics fans isn't really personally about you, it's about a behavior pattern the commenter thinks you're acting within. But I won't defend it further; people have different levels of "offendability" and there isn't a "correct" one. This next part is could sound ranty and angry if one was looking to interpret it that way, but it is not offered in that spirit, and is quite dispassionate, alleging no bad faith, just human nature. It is then followed by some constructive advice.
What I do see is that CT created a general Joker WP:SUMMARY page, which is an entirely normal thing to do, and you effectively even if not intentionally canvassed comics people to come bloc vote to delete it. Whatever the intent (I can't read minds) it has the effect and appearance of an attempt by WP:COMICS to act in a territorial WP:OWN / WP:VESTED manner of proprietary claims to the Joker, to the comics Joker always and forever being the utter focus on WP's coverage of that character, and of organized WP:FACTION resistance against any shift away from that focus. And this is nowhere near the first time we've seen that kind of stuff out of that particular project. CT expressed considerable frustration about "WP:COMICS rewriting the rules to conform to their worldview at the expense of the greater community and the general reader." Despite being a comics nut myself, I strongly share this view of the project's collective behavior or at least the appearance of it. But not just about WP:COMICS, but many other wikiprojects, especially ones devoted to subjects of fandom; they are more interested, too often, in defending their scope claims and other "wikiprimacy" than in serving the general readership and collaborating broadly to produce a comprehensive but encyclopedic not fangushing work. As CT said, "That behaviour needs to stop."
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: I didn't create the Joker (character) page; I only offered that at FAC as a solution if the primary author of Joker (comics) wasn't interested in re-focusing the article on the general character, and that's the solution he went with. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Cleaning up MOS:COMICS and WP:NCCOMICS
Part of the problem with WP:COMICS in particular is that it can't get its own act together. I tried to work on this a year or two ago, at the comics guidelines, but while some progress was made it later stalled. First: Merge the naming section of MOS:COMICS into WP:NCCOMICS, and replace that section in MOS:COMICS with a pointer to NCCOMICS. What we have right now is a guideline WP:POVFORK, with two guidelines claiming to establish comics naming conventions, and this not tolerable. Then we need to "audit" both alleged guidelines. They're really just WP:PROJPAGE essays that someone has slapped a guideline tag on without there ever having been a formal WP:PROPOSAL process for the community to approve them as guidelines. If they were subjected to a PROPOSAL today, they would quite possibly fail. This is not a big deal, though, if they are cleaned up. If they are, any later challenge – any attempt to demote them back to essays by removing the guideline tags (and this has definitely been done before to other topical pages that were alleging they were part of MoS or the naming conventions) – could be rebuffed pretty easily.
The important part of cleaning them up is going through them line by line and ensuring that either a) they do not conflict with any other guidelines (like other MOS and NC pages), but rather explain how the more general guidelines (and policies where applicable, like WP:AT) are best applied to the topic; or b) if there is a conflict, that it gets formally resolved. In the latter case, the usual resolution is to remove the conflict from the topical guideline so that it agrees with broader site-wide ones. If the variance is seen as important, get consensus for it at the talk page of the main guideline the topical one conflicts with (or at WT:MOS, or in a site-wide RfC at WP:VPPOL if you think it rises to that level of attention). If this kind of small proposal is done well, the exception may even be mentioned in the main guideline. The reason that MoS says it's okay to use "#" instead of "no." for comics is because I proposed that exception be made (more than once; I think it took three tries over the years, presenting better evidence each time that "#23" not "no. 23" is conventional for comics (in general, not just in specialist sources like comics price guides). MoS has a lot of special little details like that (e.g. a scientific name of a species is given in the form Brachypelma smithi, with italics, a capitalized genus, and a lower-case species epithet even if based on a proper name like Smith). These exceptions aren't in there because wikiprojects acted like a insular packs of WP:JERKs and pissed people off, it's because they had calm consensus discussions at WT:MOS and presented good arguments and evidence for why the special usage in question was genuinely conventional and not just some lame WP:Specialized-style fallacy. MOS:NUM is particular is chock-full of such topically particular items.
Regardless, this kind of rule-by-rule guideline audit requires either a lot of research time, or someone who knows the policies and guidelines very well and can easily detect conflicts. I'm willing to help with this again, being such a person, but not if people are going to act like monkeys are shitting in their living room.
If these normalization and conflict resolution steps are done, the propensity for comics stuff to come into dispute with other, broader guidelines, and their normal interpretation, will be massively reduced, and so will strife. About the only likely trouble-spot that would remain is the kind of WP:PRIMARY dispute we got recently, but that's a WP:AT policy matter, not a guidelines matter, and such issues will always get hashed out in RM on a case-by-case basis; it's just the nature of the PRIMARY beast.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)