User talk:Vanished user 8376539

Welcome to my user talk page. If you want to leave me a message, please do so below. I'll try to get back to you as quickly as possible. Older discussions are kept in my 2013 archive.

Star Trek Into Darkness

I'm pretty new here. Let me know what I need to do. Thanks. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. On the requested move, put in either Support or Oppose, and list any reasons you have either way. The amount of support and opposition is then counted to decide whether to make the move. Thanks again. drewmunn (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a comment to a discussion in the MOS Capital Letters article which seemed to have been sparked by your debate in the Into Darkness article. I followed up the comment with some observations and a proposal to amend the MOS. Not sure if anyone will put any further thought into it, but I thought someone from the Into Darkness debate pro-capitalization might be interested. My additions to the MOS:Capital Letters Talk page can be seen in this 'differences' link. (The thread itself is buried in the middle of the page, so linking to 'differences' seemed a good idea). — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for letting me know, I'll take a look. drewmunn (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems they do! Shame there's not more of them though, it'd clear that talk page fairly quickly. drewmunn talk 17:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

An admin actually closed the RM discussion! How about that. Hopefully that will stem the tide a bit. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I thought it was necessary

Apologies, but I’ve taken the liberty of editing a comment of yours on Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness, replacing a long string of underscores with ---- (a horizontal rule). I did this because that many non-breaking characters in a row forces horizontal scrolling if they don’t fit in the window. —Frungi (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine! I half expected them to be taken out anyway, and I didn't even think about using horizontal rule. Thanks. drewmunn (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Film

Hi, Drew! I've seen you in discussions regarding film articles recently, and I wanted to invite you to be part of WikiProject Film. As you may have seen, we have guidelines at MOS:FILM, and our talk page at WT:FILM is fairly active. I hope you'll consider joining! Erik (talk | contribs) 19:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll take a look into it! drewmunn (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome aboard! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to wash my hands clean of the Star Trek manner, but I appreciated your clear-headed comments through all that. Hope to see you around! Let me know if you ever have any questions or want to collaborate on a topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 10:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made a similar decision. I've removed it from my watch list for the next few months so I don't get violent. Hopefully we'll get to collaborate together on some more sedentary (or at least quiet) articles in the future! drewmunn talk 10:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Your signature

Your signature is not in accordance with the wikipedia guidelines on signature color and font. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.208.182 (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, as far as I can tell, it's in accordance. If you have an issue, could you point out exactly where I'm going wrong? I'm not overusing colours, I have taken colour-blindness into account, and I don't change font sizes. drewmunn talk 17:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. He said the same on my page. As a teacher I can say that it takes into consideration colour blindness and dyslexia and as such is not in violation. It is also within 2 lines of code. I think he is just jealous and too lazy to set up an account and personalise his own. MisterShiney ✉ 18:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I guessed as such. I too took into account colour choices etc. He's not edited anything else from his current IP, so I assume he's an xkcd arrival. drewmunn talk 18:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have left a note on his talk page. Not that we are likely to see them again. MisterShiney ✉ 20:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek into Darkness

I just got home, and I was going to withdraw the request like you asked, but it looks like the powers that be have already taken care of that. Thanks anyway. DillonLarson (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that; an admin took the decision to close it for now; other contributors started going slightly mad! drewmunn talk 21:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would hate for you not to get what you were expecting...

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

;)  MisterShiney ✉  19:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Things are getting somewhat beyond stupid now. I thought he'd agreed to let things go, and then things just got worse. I left it in the end; it's like bashing my head against brick wall. I preferred things when it was just "untitled Star Trek sequel". I'm off to watch some real murders, then some more intriguing fictional ones.drewmunn talk 20:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I know right? I am just staying away. Popping in every so often to look at the crazyness, shake my head and walk away lol. I am just watching Fringe, best series in a long time! MisterShiney ✉ 20:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've never got into Fringe, but I keep meaning to. Tonight's Death in Paradise was good; first one I haven't guessed in some time. My most recent Star Trek comment, pleading for less personal attacks, seems to have inflamed personal attacks. Maybe I should ask for everybody to rip each other to shreds, and see what that does. Reverse phycology! drewmunn talk 22:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

My My. You have had a busy day.... MisterShiney ✉ 18:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Not bad for a day I planned to spent mostly working on my service catalog; so far, I've done a lot of Wikipedia-ness, and only managed one photo shoot. drewmunn talk 18:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I was refering to Star Trek Into Darkness related discussions. I don't think I haven ever noticed that much activity on a talk page article before.... MisterShiney ✉ 18:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I know! It's been manic. drewmunn talk 21:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification.

I am reaching out to you because you seemed to be stepping in as an impartial moderator figure of sorts. I just wanted to clear something up about this conflict. There were multiple paragraphs. The first half met nearly universal consensus the second half could not be agreed upon. A little less than half of users supported it. There was no "compromise." It wasn't a "you can include the first paragraph, if you don't include the second" type situation. Nearly everyone agreed the first half went from bad to good, so I added it to the article. It wasn't bold, it was well agreed upon. Everyone disagreed over part two, so I rewrote it. You can go back and look at the conversation and it will back this up. (for reference, the first proposal was 4 bullets, so when people say "2 paragraphs" what they are referring to is my contribution that I placed in the article aka what you are referring to as the compromise.)

I collapsed all the quotes that support what I am saying, so they don't fill the page.

Extended content

Oppose in part. I see no real problem with the first two paragraphs (assuming the references to be reliable) because they address the titling of the movie and are accredited to the creators of the film and are on topic. --Rob Sinden Mostly Oppose per Bradd, Scjessey and Nsign. The parts we can use are the first bullet point (already in the article) and the second, which has some decent quotes. I really oppose delving into the grammar geekery, which is not relevant to the subject matter and is of no interest to the typical reader. - Fletcher Support As written, it's encyclopedic and well-sourced, and deftly handles a discussion of the issue without putting any emphasis on the specific debate on Wikipedia. --DavidK93 Support I actually think this is very encyclopedic, interesting, and informative, enough so that I'm now convinced that the lack of a colon is very intentional and correct (whereas I was previously on the pro-colon side). I was not aware that the studio themselves had been hand-wringing over the title and how to avoid putting a colon in it, nor that this was being covered outside of Wikipedia before it even became an issue here. --Pfhorrest Support I don't see any major problems with this. -- douts Oppose After much consideration and shock at how this whole can of worms got started I have decided that although some of the information might be worth a mention, it doesn't require a while section. MisterShiney Too many words devoted to a relatively minor subject in an article about the movie as a whole—in other words, WP:UNDUE. Like I said, I feel some of that information definitely belongs in the article, but in a summarized form. But if you want to be bold, go ahead and add it in. Sounds like it’d get reverted, though. —Frungi The first two paragraphs are interesting. Some stuff could be salvaged, but there would be WP:WEIGHT concerns because of having so much written about such a little issue. The "grammatical ambiguity" stuff is all navel-gazing bollocks. -- Scjessey Oppose This is a joke. - Nsign Much better. I'd delete the final sentence of the first paragraph (do we really need to know that?) but otherwise I think that's acceptable. For the record, I'd still rather it wasn't in the article at all but if it has to be then I'd say this is fine. - Nsign I have repeatedly stated above that I believe that the first two points made by Xkcdreader have some merit (although most of that is already satisfactorily covered in the article), just not the Wikipedia-related crap that follows. -- Scjessey No. We have not reached a consensus on the first two bullets. What is in the article already is sufficient, though it is possible that a few elements of those two points can be considered. But the vast majority of what you have written is wholly inappropriate for the article. -- Scjessey

This is what is happening here from my perspective. I proposed something. People objected. I continually modified the proposal to try and fix the criticisms. I propose a revised edition and everyone agrees the first half is good. Then I re-propose a rewritten second half and Scjessey and Rob Sinden take over the conversation. They claim there was some kind of compromise, this isn't true. Consensus was reached, the first half was appropriate, the second was still debated. If you go back and look at the conversation around the second and third revisions you will see the conversation is DOMINATED by those two users. The last time I proposed it Scjessey and Rob Sinden had already opposed it without reading it. They have put up a brick wall and refuse to cooperate or compromise in any way. Thy are opposing anything on principle without actually helping to work towards a compromise. They are discouraging anyone else from voicing an opinion by repeating the same two things over and over. Suddenly the post has the same wall of text as last time. So to say there was a compromise is completely inaccurate. To say I am the one being disruptive is somewhat unfair. I am causing problems. I asked them more than once to stop repeating their arguments and let other users have a say. This was the reply.

• If you make a proposal for the article, you don't get to decide who can or cannot oppose that proposal. Furthermore, it is only your opinion that I am "derailing" anything. My criticism is just as valid as anyone else's. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on the validity of his points, and my perception that he is derailing the conversation are independent. I recognize he opposes. My point is, once they have voiced their opposition, they don't need to KEEP doing it, unless their opinion has changed. This situation would not have happened had they voiced their opposition once and not in repeat mode. I am not repeating the same proposal over and over. It has been comprehensibly rewritten. Compare the first second half to the the compromise and you will see it went from 13 sentences to 5. Can we collapse everything these users have said in my proposal so it doesn't take up the entire thing, or is this considered inappropriate or something? I am not trying to silence them, I am trying to prevent them from dominating the conversation. They come in within seconds and it is completely unnecessary to harass me like that. There is no reason to act like hungry dogs and scream the second I try and work towards a compromise. I have a real problem that they are watching like hawks and revert/close discussions/oppose without even reading the contribution or helping to make it better.(Sidenote: I also really have a problem with this "it is already sufficient, it isn't necessary" argument, but that's another story. Don't encyclopedias exist to provide people information, not a lack of it?) Thanks for being a place I can rant for a second without being flooded with responses. Xkcdreader (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

---

It's just people getting heated over their opinions. The proposal you have made was put through in part, which leaves the second part in limbo. It could be equally viewed as "no decision made", or "no consensus to add". Rewriting it may not solve the issue, as the opposing editors are opposing the concept of what is said in the second paragraph. Unfortunately, Wikipeda is the sort of place where some editors will argue for the sake of arguing; especially when they are arguing with an editor they find brash, or oppose their style of editing. In this case, it can be better to let them get on with life. It's. of looking good for your second addition at the moment, so I'd just leave it for now. If the other editors want to continue, let them. If not, then let things quieten down before moving forward with your proposal. You haven't really chosen a sedate article to join, and it's always to be expected they you'll meet with some friction when your bold as a new editor. As I've said previously, if you start contributing to other articles, let things quieten down at the Star Trek Into Darkness page, it's likely you'll get more respect, and your proposal may move forward somewhat faster, and in a more civil manner. Sticking around and fighting a cyclic battle is not going to do anything other than earn the wrath of other editors. We all say things we regret from time to time, and it's getting to the stage at Star Trek where that's beginning to show quite often. When that happens, holding the moral high ground and leaving the front line is the best thing. If you want, I'll invite an impartial admin along, and get them to take a look at everything in your absence, so you can return to a more level playing field, where impartial, helpful advice has been given on the situation. drewmunn talk 07:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

---

I get the go work on other articles sentiment but I have no desire to experience this same type of thing in other places. This is a one and done type thing for this account. Even if I stick around and contribute more, it will be under a different account name, with this one left to die. I consistently fix typos and fix unclear sentences anyway when I use wikipedia as a source anyway. I just don't have that in my account history. I made this account so I could jump in and try and offer a compromise here between two groups of people. The following is my FIRST post on the matter, and was a rabbit hole I wish I had not jumped down.

" I agree with you in that it should be included. As dumb as the whole issue is, it spilled over into pop culture and the journalism realm. The fight is now history in the most literal sense. The correct title of the movie itself was the subject of the xkcd comic, thus mentioning the comic and the dailydot article would be appropriate. THAT SAID, it needs to be rewritten in its current form. The whole subtitle part should be removed completely, (see my section above for why the subtitle debate was irrelevant in the first place.) Secondly, the "some editors" comes off as a personal attack and could be written better. See my suggestion below. 07:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC) "

• " The correct capitalization of the word 'Into' in the movie title became a matter of some debate on Wikipedia and was subsequently mocked by xkcd author Randall Munroe. In a comic titled 'Star Trek into Darkness' he lampooned the fact that over forty thousand words of debate had been produced on the issue. Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris noted the debate spanned over two months. Morris also recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics and speculated that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title." Guy Keleny, The Independent's top grammarian, compared it to David Garnett's novel Lady Into Fox (incidentally, Wikipedia use a lowercase 'i' for this title as well), noting that a quick internet search indicated that most publishers used a capital 'I'. 07:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC) "

• Then it ballooned to the somewhat less neutral: " The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris noted the debate over the title's semantic interpretation spanned months and had become "a swirling maelstrom of anal retention from which no common sense can escape." Morris recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics and speculated that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title." 04:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)"

• Now it reads: In reference to a webcomic lampooning a lengthy debate over the title's orthography, The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris characterized the situation as "a swirling maelstrom" and recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics, speculating that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title."

I think the way it is written now provides the correct context (the web comic) while still remaining deft, neutral, tactful, and brief. Would you agree I worked to improve it so it read in a fashion that is more appropriate for an encyclopedia?

The real issue here is my terrible habit of pressing save as I work on things and then proofreading. I should be using preview about 10x to save. It's a reflex though, I don't even realize I have pressed save until the page is loaded. (partially because save page is bold and show preview isnt. I am working hard to break/undo this habbit. See how I posted all this in only one edit? Progress! Xkcdreader (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

---

This article is fairly unique in its massive array of conflicting opinions (I only come across such behaviour on 1/50 pages I contribute to, but this is the most vicious), so it's unlikely you'd be met with quite as much hostility elsewhere. I agree you have worked on your proposal, but it's literally just that people don't want it in any form, not that the current form isn't perfect. It's possible that it may be included later, when the rest of the article is padded out. At the moment, however, it would still make up a sizable percentage of the page's content, and it's fairly trivial. And I agree, well done for not multi-saving! I have only just successfully lowered my edit count (although saying that, you've made nearly half the number edits as I have, and I joined in 2007). Then again, it's generally pot luck whether my finger hits preview or save on my iPad. drewmunn talk 09:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I decided to write my opinion once instead of repeating it everywhere. Now I can just link to this paragraph. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek_Into_Darkness#Summary_of_Argument) It should hopefully fix a lot of the circular debate. I think I have made it pretty clear that WP:SUBJECT does not apply. The only two undecided issues, in my mind, are WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:UNDUE. I feel like WP:UNDUE is being used to overrule WP:TOO_LONG!#Content_removal - Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length and is being misused to keep something out people personally find uninteresting. WP:UNDUE says It should be easy to name prominent adherents., and by putting KEVIN's name in the article, I have named a prominent adherent. The Daily Dot is not a blog, they do cover web topics, but they have full editorial oversight. Lest me remind you, we are arguing that FIVE sentences is too much to discuss how confusing the title is. How much time did the talk page spend debating, without a clear conclusion? Xkcdreader (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

UNDUE is not being used to shorten the article, it's about sorting the chaff. For now, adding it would make it too much of the proportion of the article. The point is, we'd be making a bigger thing of the title than we are of the fact that it's a massive release. Take into account that there was a debate regarding The Dark Knight Rises, and whether the film's article should include information on the shooting, and how much. That was massive news compared to the title, yet still it was debatable how much should be in the article. For a long time, it was only mention in a small section about 4-5 sentences long. I'm not too sure that SUBJECT has much relevance, but it's possible that it may be argued. Putting all of your opinions in one place is fine, but don't assume that it's going to solve the cyclical debate. Parties on one or both sides need to step back for that to happen. As it seems you're not planning on stepping back, and it's unlikely that the other editors will, as no consensus has been reached, the debate will continue. I'm continuing to read all the content on the talk page, but will only step in on occasion. Things will not end until someone concedes or steps back, and popular opinion is stacked against consensus, thereby locking the article in its current state; if no consensus can be reached, the article is not changed. By continuing this argument, you'll be locking your own change out. If you step back and end your proposal for now, allow it to be archived, and wait for things to settle, then it's possible consensus will be on your side. Until then, everyone's too busy locking horns to allow for any change. drewmunn talk 10:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand UNDUE. Do you understand my point that it is absurd to not even address the verb/colon issue? This is an encyclopedia, and you default to NOTHING over something. "The proportion of the article" The article is devoid of ANY useful content. It's all gibberish and stupid quotes. I propose one insightful thing, and five sentences on the verb being confusing is undue weight, purely because the rest of the article is empty. It is a catch-22 and in my opinion a nonsense reason to not include valuable information that may help people. This is EXACTLY why Ignore All Rules exists, the rule is getting in way of providing people with relevant, interesting, and insightful content. Does my position at least make sense, even if you think I am wrong? Xkcdreader (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Your position makes a little sense, but Ignore All Rules is not void of responsibility. The community in general (who have taken part in this conversation from the beginning) are divided, which means it's not added. Even if we were a democracy, there'd be more votes against your proposition than for it (from a quick check back to the earliest proposition by someone else). The reason we have division means no action is to stop this kind of scenario; we don't want to go around in circles until the cows come home with nobody budging, and no consensus being reached. If this conversation continues, that's all that'll happen. We need to break the cycle, give the conversation time to gather dust, and return to it. Time out is time spent resolving conflicts, time arguing is time spent damaging yourself and others. drewmunn talk 10:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It would not be fair to use all the objections from the beginning. The majority of them have been addressed. Nsign's position changed from "Oppose This is a joke" to "Much better. I'd delete the final sentence of the first paragraph but otherwise I think that's acceptable. For the record, I'd still rather it wasn't in the article at all but if it has to be then I'd say this is fine." Nsign doesn't want it in the article because it makes wikipedia look WP:LAME. I don't think that is a valid opposition, and he acknowledged that elsewhere. I hope you understand I am not trying to misrepresent people to have my way. I am trying to stay as objective as possible given my position. The only fair thing to do would be to have a third party read every objection, and see if a) it still applied to the current draft, and b) if the persons opinion changed c) if it was an objection to the content, or my conduct. (PS Rob Sinden is borderline harassing me on my talk page, I asked him to stop talking to me a couple times. If it continues, where do I report that type of stuff?) Xkcdreader (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Having looked through all objections in detail (this goes back further than your first request), there are still more unsolved oppositions than supports for the inclusion of the currently disputed content. I understand that you want to represent people objectively, but there are still outright objections standing. The fact that much of these objections are rooted in guideline usually makes them more weighty in the eyes of and impartial adjudicator as well, so you're running backwards on an treadmill at the moment. If you've already written a polite request for him to stop, and tried adding a request of the same type on his talk page, you can ask an impartial admin to interject; you'll find them at the relevant Administrators' noticeboard. drewmunn talk 11:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Am I still allowed to talk to you or is this unblock conditional on silence here too? Hopefully this last comment doesn't get me reblocked. I just have an actual policy question. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as the block removal details look, you can't discuss the Star Trek article at all anywhere. Better be safe than sorry, although you could ask the admin who blocked you for clarification if you want to. drewmunn talk 14:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll risk it. It's about the bigger picture and how Wikipedia works, not Star Trek. It just sort of uses the situation as an example. I just want your thoughts and then Ill drop it. No more replies. You said to me "I already discussed the reason for the original reversion, and it came under BRD." WP:BRD is information, not policy. So it is kind of a middle ground right? It reflects consensus, but it's more of a gentlemans agreement? PER the policy WP:BURO, "A procedural error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it." I'm kind of stuck where information fits between policy, rule, guideline, essay etc. Logistically speaking, I had not read WP:BRD well, and made a procedural mistake when I contributed content. TECHNICALLY, I would believe, policy WP:BURO take precedent over the information page WP:BRD? Am I completely lost and misguided? In a strictly technical world, (I am thinking about this like a chess match...) shouldn't the content I submitted without any consensus in either direction be up until consensus is established to remove it. I really thought I had checkmated those guys. It kind of turned into a game in my head. So my question is, in a normal circumstance (not this one that got out of hand), WP:BURO and "procedural errors in new contributions are not grounds for reverting it" should trump WP:BRD, right? I am not even trying to win the argument anymore, I just wanted to know if I was on to something or not. Technicalities like this could be useful in the future for other people when this type of blocking stuff happens. The reason my technicality worked so well is because I kept proposing new drafts, but only submitted it to the page once AND because consensus was divided, not swinging in either direction. I feel like this could be a useful tactic/move in the future for other users who are stuck in similar situations. (If that got off topic, the crux of my question is how you rectify policy like WP:BURO and whatever WP:BRD is (I don't understand WP:BRD that well if you can't tell.) Xkcdreader (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

BRD is generally used in most situations over the top of anything else, because it helps maintain Wikipedia core purpose. Give me half an hour or so, and I'll explain in more detail, I've just got to speak to a client... drewmunn talk 15:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, it felt like the instant revert was more of a violation of BRD than my BOLD movie (which had roughly half support at the end.) Would you agree every one of us was moving too fast without listening to each other? It just seems to me like we completely skipped the R stage. Here are the steps I don't remember (condensed because it looks pretty.)

Extended content

Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it rather than reverting it, do so. The other disputant may respond with yet another bold edit in an ongoing edit cycle. Avoid the revert stage for as long as possible. Revert-wars do not help build consensus: Try to avoid reverting a revert yourself. (I was guilty of doing this, and they locked the page I think. They can undo that if they want, I wasn't going to keep going.)

I think I am really stuck on WHY inclusion needs consensus and not exclusion. If you include it, you will get more eyes (people who don't read the talk page on a regular basis) and hopefully more eyes to decide if its appropriate. The whole things seems backwards to me. What is the downside to erring on the side of slightly controversial content, instead of no content at all? How can you get unbiased eyes (random wiki passerbyers, not wiki regulars?) The process seems intentionally designed to favor the status quo and the elder users, cliques, bureaucracy, and due process over just giving up and allowing a little extra content. I think my other big conundrum is "is there a difference between no consensus and consensus against?" Because right after my bold action, the narrative on the talk page seemed to suggest I violated consensus instead of a lack of one. Is there a difference? And when we say "controversial" do we mean to a few loud voices, or to the majority of people. Of all the opposes, only a handful seemed to care that much. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm back (sorry, long half hour, I know. Anyone would think I actually work or something)! Anyway, BRD is a guide informing editors how to deal with potentially controversial additions. It's designed to help keep wikipedia content within the other guidelines, whilst allow a forum for new additions. In the case of your edit, however, older precedence also had play. A similar addition was added at some point in the not-too-distant past, and it was removed under BRD. It was discussed, and no consensus reached. Therefore, there was precedent in the case of your addition for revert. It may seem like established editors being overprotective, and to a small extent, it is. However, this is because the more established editors were around for the entire discussion, and knew of the older case. As per that precedent, your edit was subject to BRD. The discussion took of on a slightly strange footing, however, because tensions were already high; inferred lack of consensus on part of your first proposal meant that your edit wasn't agreed as part of the original forum, and precedent suggested removal. You were a new editor, and we get quite a lot of trouble-makers who simply add in removed content, in some cases even if there are notes inline with the text explicitly telling them not to. Everybody had their shackles up, and the debate got out of hand fairly quickly (that's when I made myself scarce). BRD is used to protect the main article from this kind of debate, and so when you reinstated your text, it was seen by some as an example of your attitude towards due process, which just inflamed the situation further. Basically, BRD is generally accepted as a firewall; BURO is a warning. BURO doesn't really count here, because the revert wasn't made simply out of procedure. If you'd put something in that contained a slight slip in procedure (you'd added some personal info, for instance), then BURO says we should not revert it. Instead, and editor should clean out the part that broke the guideline, and leave the rest be. BURO is meant to protect content that is innocent but caught up in a guideline controversy, it's not meant to say we can't revert changes under BRD. Your content wasn't reverted because of guidelines, it was reverted to allow due process to take place in the background, rather than start an edit war. Neither BURO nor BRD trump each other as such, they both cover different eventualities, although this can be confusing to editors. We can revert edits based if they're breaking guidelines, but only if that doesn't remove any other good information added. That's how we deal with vandalism, libel, etc. If there is content added that's controversial, and due process could iron out the bugs (or precedence suggests it should not be included), then BRD allows for its removal. It's then discussed, and we can gauge how to, if any way, add it back. All of this is fairly confusing, so it's understandable that you're puzzled. In the case in hand, it's exacerbated by the tension running through the talk page, which has existed since long before you were an editor. An unfortunate situation made worse by unfortunate circumstances, I'm afraid. drewmunn talk 16:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I am still lost. This step of BRD was completely skipped. "Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it rather than reverting it, do so." Shouldn't just the controversial lines have been removed, and not the whole addition? Shouldnt the person who initially reverted, instead have read it, and tried to fix it first? That's where I see due process failing. It was reverted as a whole, instead of first removing the most controversial parts. Buuut, this conversation has run its course, so ... cheers! For what it's worth, you seem to do a pretty good job of staying neutral and hearing both sides. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That fine! As far as as countering with a bold edit goes, it was glossed over because of precedence with the same subject. drewmunn talk 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

hrmph. That still frustrates me. A lot. It's the fact that I have to spend days learning wtf is even going on here that leads people to never come back. WP:BITE should be enforced with serious spankings or something as punishment for violations. (As a note to anyone with power who ever reads this, policy should encourage users to be rash to include content, and careful to remove it.) [Also, if you wouldn't mind adding a disclaimer to your line "It's more that it was decided not to include it yesterday, and that was a compromise", saying that isn't really true or misleading or something, I'd feel a lot better when one of the top comments didn't misrepresent the situation completely. That would be your call if something like that is appropriate, I still don't understand talk pages that well.] Chiao!!Xkcdreader (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that more could be done to make joining a smoother transition; however, I don't know what's involved nowadays. In my day, I created an account, and that was that. It was hacked (no, correction, I left it logged in on a public machine), and I didn't know what to do. Someone undid the edits, but I never knew how to apologise or anything. Anyway, I read quite a bit, and got involved with a range of projects, and learned the hard way; I sat through many thousands of words worth of discussions, and finally got to grips with the system enough to be bold. Anyway, I know the teahouse exists nowadays, and it's apparently quite useful, so that might be worth a try. Other than that, it's pretty hard to know where to start. drewmunn talk 17:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but I'll have to respectfully pass. Once was enough. I'll let my legacy be a stupid amount of archive, and five (hopefully ten) sentence ownership of the title section of that movie I shouldn't mention. Xkcdreader (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, feel free to come back in the future (new account if you feel that's necessary), and set to work with some different contributions! As far as disclaimer, I'll read through again. However, I'm not promising anything, as I do believe is was somewhat against consensus; no consensus was inferred. That will not matter in the future though, as consensus changes, so any future discussions outside of the immediate time frame will start from scratch (besides precedent, but that's a whole other matter, and my adding a disclaimer won't change anything). drewmunn talk 17:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't do a very good job of describing my problems with this place. First is the software. It is great for articles, and terrible for communication. If wikipedia were to adopt a reddit style messageboard for talk pages, I would consider it. Users need to be able to collapse and expand threads at will, within their browser without refreshing the page. You need to be able to edit messages without refreshing the page. Real time previews? The community needs to be able to downvote/report the annoying people to the bottom. Second is the top down bureaucracy. The dispute channels are immense. Fuck that, binding decisions? No thanks. I would much prefer to participate at wikia, where if I don't like a group I can start my own competing team (again, similar to reddit and subreddits.) http://en.wikipedia.org/org/xkcdreader/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness. If wikipedia was more like git, and I could fork an article and start my own competing encyclopedia I would be happy. Have a master database, and diff each teams articles to save on storage. Factions and governments would form on their own, and each team could run their encyclopedia their own way. My biggest issue is with democracy. Democracy gives equal voice to very different qualities of argument. It leads to rhetoric and campaigning, lying and cheating. If the voting population is stupid, the consensus becomes stupid. Again, I want to be able to break away and do my own thing, with my own team of editors. So, give me a call if Wikipedia turns into git+reddit+wikia and allows me to fork my own governing body the way I want, with the team I want of like-minded editors. It is the same argument against government and for privatization. The presence of opponents forces the factions to COMPETE, and focus on their product and not stale behind the scenes arguments. If your wikiteam was falling into second place, you would work harder to improve the content. A single monolithic government will inevitably stagnate and collapse under its own weight. Maybe someday in the far future, somebody will stumble upon this and get rich. They should give me credit, and maybe some stock. Even if I stayed here, I would get sucked into one of these dumb things every couple years, and it's not worth the stress. I would rather just go start my own wikia or subreddit and not deal with crap and red tape. Any site that makes adding five fairly well constructed sentences to its article this hard and lengthily, needs to sort out its own daemons before it starts attracting new users. (And develop a modern communication system like reddit, with threads. It's 2013.) As it stands there are just too many hands in the proverbial honey pot. Mediocrity prevails because it is safe and non-controversial. I just find it to be a compromised product that is more about ego than making the world a better place. And that is why I don't bother contributing, except to copyedit bad sentences. If a FRACTION of the time we spent debating this was put into including it and editing it down, this would have been done days ago. That is how it works here, in theory, but definitely not in practice.Xkcdreader (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm in a state of delirium currently, and the only thing I got out of the above was the word 'honey'. I'm really hungry... drewmunn talk 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

tldr: software sucks for communication, community uses it backwards. Put the contribution in first, whittle it down over the course of weeks. "There is no rush" should apply to removal and copyediting not including. Pages should not be treated as final drafts of documents. Everything is backwards. Xkcdreader (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Although the software isn't perfect, I'd have to disagree with your surmise that it doesn't work the right way. It's not geared towards long and arduous talking, agreed, but it's not designed for that. As far as the speed of editing, I think copyediting should be faster; it only takes 1 spelling mistake on a page to lose a massive audience. Keeping content encyclopaedic is the primary reason (beside vandal-hunting) for reverting, and many more pages would appear cluttered or rambling without swift copyediting, and long-term decisionmaking afterwards. drewmunn talk 18:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I had a brainstorm and synthesized what I am getting at through all these semi-rhetorical questions. Thanks for letting me ramble on your page. My REAL question is, "is Wikipedia more concerned with keeping its ruling class happy and settling for the least controversial decisions possible, as oppose to putting out the best possible product and hurting a few feelings along the way?" Because if that is true, I don't understand why people even bother. (I noticed the first conversation on your talk page is a person with the same sentiment.) If this is true it hurts me inside. Finding out Wikipedia cares more about its stewards and their feelings than its product is like finding out Santa Clause isn't real. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fine! Now just to work on getting that edit count down... The first conversation is fairly similar, in fact! The other editor was getting reverted, but then wanted some fairly good changes instated, so he had a debate on the Skyfall talk. People took badly to his editing technique, and the situation escalated. He took some time out of the discussion at my suggestion, and we had the matter resolved (with his suggested changes instated) in a matter of days. Procedure can get caught up sometimes. drewmunn talk 16:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Drew, I wanted to let you know you can set up automatic archiving. You can insert code at the top of your talk page. For example, this is my code:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
 |maxarchivesize = 100K
 |counter = 26
 |algo = old(14d)
 |archive = User talk:Erik/Archive %(counter)d
 }}

It means that when the discussion is 14 days old, the bot will archive it. "26" means I am at User talk:Erik/Archive 26 now. When the archive page hits 100K, the bot will change the counter and create a new page for archiving. If you want to do this, I think this is the code for you:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
 |maxarchivesize = 100K
 |counter = 1
 |algo = old(14d)
 |archive = User talk:Sonicdrewdriver/Archive %(counter)d
 }}

You can change "algo" to archive after 7 days or however long you want. I recommend sticking with a basic counter (Archive 1, Archive 2, etc.) to make it easier for the bot. Let me know if you have any questions! Erik (talk | contribs) 17:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, I might get around to it sometime. At the moment, I like to keep stuff there longer than others, is there a way of forcing Mizabot (or any other similar bots) to exclude some sections? drewmunn talk 17:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

See User:MiszaBot/config, perhaps the "Delaying or preventing archiving of particular threads" section is what you want. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I shall instate shortly... drewmunn talk 18:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doctor Who, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Time Lady (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

notification of current state of work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS

Hi. As you're one of those folks who contributed to the work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS but then seemed to tune out (and therefore – as opposed to the "MoS regulars" – probably didn't follow it any further), I just briefly wanted to point you towards my latest post there (beginning with "As there has been little progress"), which might well be the last overall: I'm phasing out, and since there hasn't been much input by other users lately, it's likely that over the next few days, the thread'll die (i.e., disappear into the archives) without there having been made any changes to the MoS. So I'd be much obliged if you took the time to stake your support for or opposition to my proposal (should I also have put an RfC tag there?) and – unless it's accepted (I'm not holding my breath...) – maybe even considered keeping the debate going. Thanks. (I'm aware of the unsolicited nature of this message, so if you feel molested by it, I apologize.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

Please be sure to check if all the links are present in the Wikidata item before removing the interwiki links from Wikipedia. With this edit you missed out two language links gnwiki and be-x-oldwiki. I've corrected it on the Wikidata item now. Thanks. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for that, I tried to make sure I didn't delete any, but I obviously missed some. Please forgive me, there were quite a lot to look through. :-) drewmunn talk 09:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Microsoft Office 2013".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 11:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Dewy60 Although his edit is unsourced, and has been reverted (not by me) it is not vandalism, just incompetence. I am watching him. Please also continue to do so, because I am just now going to bed! --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks Many thanks for the barnstar and for the withdrawal. My best, Cavarrone (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC) That's fine, I didn't see how the article could be improved, but you proved me wrong! It's always good to see an article grow instead of die. drewmunn talk 18:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Removing AfD template Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Chicken Park. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  18:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC) DRN case Hello Sonicdrewdrive, the DRN case that you are involved in has now been opened. We need your participation to be able to resolve the dispute. Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 17:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you! But no apology necessary. With all the variants on that title, including the episode title itself, it's an easy mistake to make. However, I do plan to enjoy the cookie with a cup of tea! --Drmargi (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Welcome. The official name for Mac OS X v. 10.7 is OS X. if you don't believe, ask Apple. And, in the article A/UX, why it have Netscape(third party software) and you do not delete it and find a plain screenshot? Applist (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Hi, there was a long discussion on this when the change was made for Mountain Lion, and Lion was officially called Mac OS X. This data was gathered from within the software; Lion self-referenced as Mac OS X, and ML as OS X. See here for evidence of this. They phased removal of "Mac" in Lion's marketing to ready for ML, but it was still officially "Mac OS X". Regards the A/UX article, because I don't look at the contents of every article on Wikipedia, I hadn't seen that. I can't personally produce a replacement shot, but one would be preferable. It's likely that no other screenshot is available, because it's so old, but someone might have one. It's acceptable at the moment because no better alternative exists. drewmunn talk 13:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you. I see in "About This Mac" in OS X 10.7.4, it identifies itself as Mac OS X! However, why you put this section below?Applist (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC) That's how talk pages work, you put new sections at the bottom. To create a new section quickly, you can hit the "New Section" or "+" option on the options bar, near the "Edit" option. It makes it easier to follow chronology within pages; sections are in chronological (oldest to newest) order, and content in sections is also oldest to newest (vaguely, there are some exceptions where you are replying to an earlier comment). Does that help? drewmunn talk 13:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC) why you identify yourself as drewmunn?Applist (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Because that's my name. However, when I created this account back in the dark ages, all my usernames were the same (easier to remember), so Sonicdrewdriver was the one I chose. Since then, I decided to swap my ID over to what I generally now use, drewmunn, as it's a bit cleaner. However, I've kept the same account for ease of use at my end. drewmunn talk 13:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Question Thanks for telling me the explanation for the recent edit and I apologize for the misunderstanding our users have asked us why we weren't represented Wikipedia and I guess I did the wrong thing. One question is would our current user base be able to add the external link to the page? Thanks Zenpush (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC) That is a blurred line now, unfortunately. You cannot encourage them to add the link, as they'd be doing so for you. If someone was, completely of their own accord and without any prior discussion with you, to add the link, then it would most likely remain in place. However, if you are to mention it to them, then you'd be running the risk of the link becoming 'blacklisted'; editors would be more likely to delete the link citing COI. For you, the best idea would be to leave it, and we'll see if someone decides to add the link of their own accord. Note that any additions in the next few days will most likely be scrutinised, checking that editors are in no way related to your product. As such, it's best to ensure nobody involved uses their personal account adds the link either. Any more questions, feel free to ask! drewmunn talk 17:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Tasm You might want to sign you're name on the discussion page. ;) Jhenderson 777 23:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Cheers for pointing that out; I have no idea how it happened, or how I missed it. drewmunn talk 08:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Quick word about 'Skyfall' Hi, just quickly saying thanks for the patience you showed to my stubborn attempt at changing the Skyfall page. Eventually I figured out you can click on 'talk' next to an edit, and found to my surprise, clear and reasonable reasons they were being reverted. Thanks also for labeling the attempts as 'good faith'. I'll get to know the guidelines a little better. Cheers!