User talk:MisterShiney/Archive January - February 2013

Happy New Year

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello MisterShiney: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Shiney and Sparkley

I can't resist asking, are you related to Mister Sparkley at all? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

hahahaha no I am not. MisterShiney ✉ 16:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Agenda: Grinding America Down

Thanks for looking into the changes made to this page. You would not believe the strife that has been on the Amazon.com entry for this film. I guess it is a lightening rod for those with rather extreme views. Bill Pollard (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It was a pedantic thing to do to the article and the comment was antagonistic. MisterShiney ✉ 22:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_jingoistic_behaviour_by_User:MervinVillarreal

Discussion there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

These are informal warnings. I would have just templated your ass. — They should stick that on a template!. Betty Logan (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaha sorry. I know that is probably a borderline personal attack but the guy is irritating! MisterShiney ✉ 18:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder what would happen to Merv if someone added the British Empire Wikiproject banner to the United States article? I bet he would spontaneously combust! Betty Logan (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm just annoyed it went on so long, there should be an easier way to add someone to the noticeboard without having to write out a big chunk of text and hunt down all the evidence. At least we get a week break, short of him sock puppeting. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Added my piece. Betty, there is one of those? Can we find one that says he has been defeated by the British empire? I should note that that comment is just banter and not intended to be taken seriously. MisterShiney ✉ 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

On the run

Oh, I was joking, believe me. :) I monitor for active discussions here, so I've seen the discussion go ever on. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahh fair enough. I thought so, wasnt sure because it's not like you lol. MisterShiney ✉ 20:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Please take care not to engage in edit warring. Neither version is a "bad" version, so it's not necessary to be so forceful about it, especially if we're discussing the possibility of AfD. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Aye. Wasnt going to. Just think this is an issue that unless there is a clear policy on it then we should just leave it blank. MisterShiney ✉ 16:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

May I have your opinion?

User VasOling on The Dark Knight Rises article insists on saying it received "a warm critical response" in the lede. And that it received positive reviews from "most" critics. I believe this is against practice on most film articles, as "most" is arguably incorrect. Eng Wikipedia has its systemic bias; most contributors are people from Western civilization educated enough to speak English, and so are English sources used. We don't know what critics outside this group say. I want to wrap this up as soon as possible. I'm starting a talk page discussion as we speak, but he has a history of edit warring, so I'm not sure if he's going to listen. I've reverted him once already. Anthonydraco (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall

Could I ask for your input on the drive-by GA nomination of Skyfall? The thread can be found here. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have replied. I am afraid it was very on the fence lol. MisterShiney ✉ 15:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem: I wasn't fishing for support, but for an honest opinion, which is exactly what you've given. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Stargate

Perhaps you should have read the talk page or reviewed MOS:FILM before reverting an edit without any comment. Your edit is unconstructive and a violation of established policy. 99.192.51.30 (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As is your edit warring behaviour. I strongly suggest and recommend that you get yourself an account and provide more detailed summaries rather than being generic and saying something is "Not debatable" which says that you aren't willing to discuss with other editors who are asking you to follow WP:BRD. It take's less than 5 minutes to start a topic on the talk page and leave a message and explaining in more depth your reason for a change.

I reverted your change because you had already expressed no interest in talking to other editors on the said talk page and I was in support as per BRD, discussing the removal first.

Not that it is any of your business though, I was on my phone at the time and pressed the wrong button that sent the change before I could write an edit summary.

I strongly recommend that you get yourself an account. Otherwise you may face these issues again. MisterShiney ✉ 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Smallville

So, you are a Smallville fan, yet don't know that the show is now continued in a comic book series written by one of the show's writers? Then you missed great stuff of what is happening to Clark, Lex, Chloe, Oliver, Tess, etc. Not to mention, Batman finally appears to the series.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not quite sure how to take that. So I will take it how I hope it was intended. I had heard that something was going on with the comics, but not entirely convinced that it deserves a place on the TV series article other than a brief mention of its relevance. I feel it should have a page of its own. MisterShiney ✉ 22:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright of film press releases

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can you identify the policy page that says official film press releases aren't copyrighted? According to Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can_I_add_something_to_Wikipedia_that_I_got_from_somewhere_else.3F:

"Occasionally, the question is raised about the copyright status of press releases. While press releases are by nature intended to be reproduced widely, there is no inherent permission to alter them or create derivative works based on them, or to use them for commercial purposes. Accordingly, press releases are handled like other copyrighted content. In the absence of explicit disclaimer or permission, these may not be freely reproduced."

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:Copy-paste will cover that with "Always write the articles in your own words and cite the sources of the article." which is on my first thing to do list tomorrow as soon as I have some sleep. You will find that a lot of up and coming Movies have official summaries in to provide substance for the article. It is up to the editors to rewrite/word them etc. As in the case of Superman (film), Warm Bodies (film), After Earth and The Wolverine (film) Where I see them, I rewrite them in own words so they cannot be accused of copy vio. It's standard practice for any summary for TV Series/Films. It's just in this instance I have added it first as it is a fairly new article. Please continue this conversation on the Article Talk Page so other editors can contribute. I shall take the liberty of transferring your comments there. MisterShiney ✉ 23:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to block you myself per WP:INVOLVED, but you if you continue to restore copyrighted material without providing evidence that it is either not covered by our policy, I will file a report at WP:AIV. WP:BRD does not take precedence over WP:COPYRIGHT policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for rewriting the summary (I only saw that after I posted the prior warning). Having been around for many years, I can say with certainty that copyright policy is taken quite seriously here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know. I also take it seriously and go around new movie articles to rewrite them. It was always my intention to rewrite it, I just didnt really have the time this evening (stupid job!), so I put it there to change it either in the morning, or for another editor to change over night. Anyways, see you around. MisterShiney ✉ 23:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Back at you! Star Trek into Darkness (or is that Star Trek Into Darkness?) will seem like a welcome relief when it finally arrives. drewmunn (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

A very kind gesture, and much appreciated. I'm glad we could disagree on a bit of text phrasing and still work with mutual respect — that's what it's all about. And for the record, I agree with you that the closing admin might have been too narrow in his thinking. What I'm basically seeing is two editors who were insistent about rigidity to a guideline that, in this case, flies in the face of reason. And the fact that those of us who feel differently are taking it in good stride and in perspective makes me, nonetheless, continue to feel proud to be part of this community, a community that, I think, has been maturing over the last couple of years in particular. It is good to be working with you, and I look forward to collaborating again in the future! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Basically sums up what I popped in to say! As Vinnie Jones once said - It's been emotional! lol. douts (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What they said -- Thanks for the barnstar! It sometimes seems like I'm developing a habit of sticking my head into disputes involving individual letters. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for that. Have a cookie! --Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10 January 2013 (UTC)

One does not simply Star Trek into Darkness!

Thanks for the barnstar. =) —Frungi (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

constructive

If you felt the need to bring up the loss of Rand's ability to use the one power should you not also have added the power he had gained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.201.45 (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not my decision to make. Other editors have deemed it not necessary. If you feel it is needed, then please start a discussion on the Article Talk Page so a consensus re this material and be made. Many thanks for stopping by. MisterShiney ✉ 00:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar, I have to be honest and say that it came as a welcome surprise since I had been feeling a little down on account of the fact that it seems like its been forever since someone awarded me one :) As to the discussion, I am sorry to see that the proposed move of Star Trek into Darkness descended into darkness, but as the Narada demonstrated in the reboot there is always a light at the end of the black hole ;) Take care, and although it's a little late, Happy New YEar all the same. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcome. It was very well deserved. MisterShiney ✉ 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Many thanks for stepping in this morning and patiently explaining policies, ethos and background—it's very much appreciated! SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. If I see something I try and help. See you around. MisterShiney ✉ 12:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Updating about the anon202...

(S)He appears to have rebooted the modem and has walked away from the prior anonymous IP of 202.81.242.188 and into a new one, new one, 202.81.242.51. I only caught it because the anon is following my edits rather closely. I'll let you know if the user becomes problematic again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the heads up. MisterShiney ✉ 17:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

BB mountain

I'm 99.9% sure you intended to put your !vote in the subsequent section, so I moved it for you. Feel free to move it back if I'm wrong. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh poopsicles! I didnt realise. Thank you :) MisterShiney ✉ 18:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for that. Have another cookie! Jprw (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, since most of your edits are undos, I have not granted you AWB yet. Instead I have given you the rollback access. This is for things like vandalism or section blanking. Read WP:Rollback too see where to use it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahh wonderful. Thank you very much :) MisterShiney ✉ 12:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

For AWB I like to see over 400 edits that are improving spelling grammar, categories, references, that sort of activity. You will prbably get there eventually so apply again when you have clocked up more "constructive" edits, rather than ones that just return the article to how it was before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. Thanks for the tip. MisterShiney ✉ 21:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited White House Down, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jason Clarke (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) 11:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for joining WikiProject Grey's Anatomy!

Hello MisterShiney, and welcome to WikiProject Grey's Anatomy! I would like to thank you for joining the project, and I look forward to collaborating with you! We announce tasks and projects on the talk page of the project, and I encourage you to take part in the tasks. If you have any questions about the project, or anything, do not hesitate to ask me. Sofffie7 (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I look forward to taking part a bit more. See you around. MisterShiney ✉ 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested

OK. I will pop over and take a look. MisterShiney ✉ 20:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not post on my talk page anymore. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If I see you violating policy I will post the appropriate messages on your talk page. It is only fair to give you sufficient warning. If you are disputing these warnings then I strongly urge you to make a report on the relevant admin board. MisterShiney ✉ 23:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Revolution - Steam Power

Thanks for the heads-up re: the tv series Revolution. I had already decided from episode one that I won't be watching it but out of curioisty I wondered why they had no steam power.

My understanding is that the earliest of cars didn't require electricity either (having hand cranks for the engine).

This improbable lack of use lead me to give up on that series after one episode... given that the US has high education standards there would be enough people around to know how to operate these.

Montalban (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but given all the militia wars and all the problems about farming and as Aaron said in the first episode, we had lost all the skills to survive. It does get better and worth a watch. In it's defence, it is Science Fiction, emphasis on Fiction. It's not meant to be realistic. MisterShiney ✉ 21:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I had the same problem with The Walking Dead - if I accept a premise of a world full of zombies I didn't understand why the deputy would walk about with a single six-shot revolve (he had a shot-gun, but he kept that in the car's boot/trunk).

In a nation of high gun-ownership I would have expected he'd have several guns on him at the same time. Even the camp outside Atlanta, they had a single man with a shotgun on only one of the caravans/trailers who wouldn’t have been able to see the whole perimeter… and other people in the camp didn’t have guns.

But with ‘’Revolution’’, if I accept the premise of a world without electrical power it made no sense that an 'expert at death' as the ex-Marine uncle was would be an expert with swords... although he's had 15 years to learn and practice, he would stand-out.

I also found the confrontation in the village at the beginning illogical where people with farm implements would have pressed against the militia - and one just knew that the father was going to die - of course his son would completely ignore him and not put the weapon down even though the father was in the direct line of fire. The rebellious teen seems to have carried on into this post modern world. Even the daughter was stereotypical in that regards... selfish and strong-willed.

I found the writing poor. The only thing I liked was the doctor with the poison whiskey bottle - a very clever idea, and unexpected to me the viewer.

I am glad you enjoy it. Perhaps it's going to go into further seasons???

I put up with two seasons of ‘’Lost’’ and, ‘’Lost Girl’’ before abandoning them. I still like ‘’Fringe’’.

I appreciate your feedback. Montalban (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Fringe is awesome! One of the best Sci-Fi series for a long time. Im halfway through season 3 at the moment. Yes there were several stereotypes in the opening episode, but sometimes you just need to look past it all lol. Its one of those lazy sunday afternoon shows. Like Fast Food, you know it's not good for you, but you eat/watch it anyways and you feel guilty because on some level you liked it. Make sense? MisterShiney ✉ 22:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I like Fringe very much myself. The last season not so much, but everything up to then. Thanks for the kind words, by the way. As I recall, you and I have disagreed respectfully and collegially and worked together for the betterment of Wikipedia regardless. This other discussion is so dismaying. Ah, well. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	You're a collegial and gracious editor, with the rare gift of calm steadiness that helps temper heated discussion. As well, you show confident boldness in the equally rare occasions it's truly needed. With thanks for your endeavors, Tenebrae (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

About User:Beyond My Ken...

He asked me to drop you a note. It's probably best if you just leave him alone. He is allowed to blank messages from his talk page; it's not an awesome way of doing things, but he's within his rights, and he's within his rights to ask you not to post on his talk page. If he has a grudge, let him have a grudge in peace. It's a wide Wikipedia, no need to get all up in his business about it, right? :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

for your good comments and helpful feedback

Montalban (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Request from a colleague

I know saying "styled as Star Trek Into Darkness" isn't perfect, but it's a compromise that does the important task of getting the real-world title in the lead so that Wikipedia doesn't look like we're completely detached. And one could even make an argument for its being "styled" or "stylized" (either works for me) since in proper grammar it would either be lowercase i or have a colon. What do you say? Could you see your way clear to self-reverting and leaving the compromise version in. At least two editors are for it, and Rob Sinden isn't against it. Think of what it could mean if, for now, we could all meet halfway. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude: Just want to say how good it is to meet you and to work you on a couple of truly varied topics. You're a good, sensible and mature editor, and the fact we can variously agree or disagree on things and do it with respect and collegiality ... well, would that all Wikipedia editors were like that. My sincere compliments to you. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No Problem buddy. Just glad to be among people who get my sense of humour. lol. :) See you around. MisterShiney ✉ 20:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice

As an involved editor, you're invited to keep an eye on new developments at Star Trek into Darkness and its talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. :) MisterShiney ✉ 07:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Enforcing a Break

Hi, I've created a nice quiet page about the possibility of enforcing a break from debating Star Trek into Darkness. Would you mind taking a look, and giving your opinions? You can find it here, and please feel free to invite anyone you feel would add to the conversation. drewmunn talk 12:47, 30 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) 17:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you will find that my signature is within guideline parameters and is in accordance with the parameters. MisterShiney ✉ 18:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it amusing that someone who's obsessing over mine and your signatures didn't sign either of their posts. drewmunn talk 18:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That was going to be my next comment lol. MisterShiney ✉ 18:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

MisterShiney/Administrator NoticeBoards

Hello, MisterShiney, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on MisterShiney/Administrator NoticeBoards, appears to be directly copied from http://wikipedia.7val.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on MisterShiney/Administrator NoticeBoards if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of MisterShiney/Administrator NoticeBoards

A tag has been placed on MisterShiney/Administrator NoticeBoards, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Meant to create a user sub page in order to create a template. Apologies for any inconvienince caused.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MisterShiney ✉ 20:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments re: Star trek I/into Darkness

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your bad faith comments attacking me specifically were pretty dumb, Shiney. Kinda makes me glad that you are sem-retired. Perhaps you could take the final step and wander off iun search of something - well, shiny - to amuse you? Good luck in future endeavors, Shiney. And - how did you put it - oh yes: 'don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out'. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Says the person who came in and started off by insulting everyone who had painstakingly spent nearly two months working hard to try and sort the silliness out. Not a good way to start and to continue by attacking a user directly on their user page is not a suitable way to continue. Quite frankly I have no respect to an editor who after seeing a stupid cartoon pops in just to insult everyone who was involved rather than try and contribute cooperatively and sort the issue out. Shows a complete lack of maturity on your part. Whilst I appreciate my comments may of escalated the situation (for which I apologise) please take note that if I ever see you swan in and insult other editors as you did on said page again, I for one will not hesitate to take action on the relevant admin board. MisterShiney ✉ 06:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I came to the page, which has been watchlisted by me for months (so the bs about me "swanning in" is again, your failure to correctly assess the situation). because the utter "silliness" was seen by others and broadcast to the internet. Wha I am unclear on is why you felt you were in a position to counsel me is what boggles me. You've had your share of dick moves, and I haven't called you on them. While my commentary was sharp, there is not doubt that it was absolutely on point.

That some people took months to iron out a capitalization issue - when policy (not guideline but policy) tells us quite succinctly that when in doubt, seek out sources or wait. I will not ever understand the burning need of some editors to rush an edit without proper sourcing. This isn't a fan forum and it isn't a media outlet. It's an online encyclopedia. It has to be accurate and cited, not served quickly with an order of fries. If I occasionally get upset at people who fail to grasp this incredibly simple aspect of Wikipedia, then so be it, and no apologies will ever be forthcoming. And if I ever see you insult another editor - me or anyone else, I will happily bounce your dainty posterior like aq basketball on over to the admin board myself. Just so we're clear on the matter. Waste time in useless arguments in Wikipedia: feel my wrath. Attack me and suffer much the same result.

I think we're done here. We know each other's position. Tread carefully around me, Shiney. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Well considering you didn't take part in the painstakingly long conversations re the titles, you hadn't posted on the talk page since December 2011, you basically did swan in and delivered a generic insult on an already tense group of editors. The fact that you then proceeded to come to my talk page and insult me directly again shows clear lack of civility and was quite frankly seen as personal attack. The only reason I didn't report it was because I am sure my post did not help, for which I have already apologised above. If you had read the conversation/taken part, you would of seen that because we are an encyclopedia, with our own policies and guidelines, that that was what the root problem was. Point is, you started it.

On a different note, you would also see that I was pro capitalisation from the start. Yes the discussion has been tense, but I for one learnt a bit of respect for those against because of the weight of their arguments and their loyalty to the policies that are there to make Wikipedia something to be proud of. It was hardly a useless argument as we eventually got there. If you feel it's a waste of time, just don't take part, and don't threaten other editors.

I have never delivered any personal attack on another editor, I have however called people up on dickish behaviour, which lets face it, your behaviour was. However I do always try and prod people in the right direction and strongly urge them to re-familiarise themselves with policies and guidelines. I am not sure what Dickish moves on my part you are referring too, so if you could elaborate, I always do appreciate feedback. Granted I was involved in an edit war when I first started out, but back then I wasn't as familiar with policies and guidelines and have since had a fairly clean record. MisterShiney ✉ 07:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I just want to say that I’m glad to see that I was wrong on my own Talk page. —Frungi (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your edit here, if you want to know why the heading was changed, you can look through the page's edit history (much as I did to find your reversion of it) and see what my rationale was in my edit summary. That heading Jack Sebastian chose was not in keeping with WP:CIV or WP:NPA, and he flat-out admitted to me that he chose it to be provocative. Please use only titles that reflect the content of the discussion's topic, and not which comment on other users. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think he was correct in reverting it, to be honest. We don't refactor the posts of others because we personally feel those to be uncivil. Refactoring in a tense situation is fuel on a bonfire; it has no positive effect on the disucussion. His heart was in the right place - just like yours was in removing it. Let's just leave it be, shall we? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

To MisterShiny: Perhaps no one took steps because it was borderline enough for them to hesitate (as he did address a particular editor), or because the size of the entire talk page free-for-all scared off those who simply didn't want to touch it with a ten meter targ scoop.

And to reiterate what I said to Jack, if an admin feels that some edit violates WP:CIV, then refactoring it, in some types of cases, is precisely one of the things they are empowered to do. However, I did not refactor your post, as I merely changed the heading. Headings are not proprietary. Thanks to both of you. Nightscream (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

For future reference, could you please cite where, in our policies or guidelines, wherein the proprietary nature of posts and sections headings are delineated? As I see it, they are both written by the same post, and are thusly (excepting in very specific circumstances) covered by REFACTOR, and not open to BOLD interpretation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As requested, I believe that WP:TPO in particular " It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate," in your case, a change of heading was appropriate to prevent you getting a, in your terms, a drubbing by other editors. MisterShiney ✉ 18:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

hey, could I trouble you to stop cluttering up my user talk page with your nonsense? Thanks in advance. You don't really have anything of interest that i want to hear. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean you don't like being criticised? It's not clutter if it's constructive and an attempt to get over our differences. Which has always been my intention. MisterShiney ✉ 21:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have asked you politely to not bother me or post on my user-talk page, a reasonable enough request, considering the friction involved in our contacts. You have chosen to disregard my polite request, and post a few more times. Allow me to be blunt: you are not smarter than I am. You have no wisdom or particular field of knowledge wherein I have any crushing need to extract. The next time you display the uncivil tendency to pollute my page with your trash, I will have no choice but to ask for you to be blocked for harassing me. You should know me well enough to know that I will no problem whatsoever in doing so. Please consider this your last warning regarding this. Do not post on my page. Take this excellent advice and stay away. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You are kidding right...? Or have you forgotten that you come to me? Laying on all kinds of attacks and I have had to endure your lack of civility. For one who claims to appreciate politeness from other editors you are very rude. In what why have I implied that I am smarter than you....? Of that I have so called wisdom? Or that I am an expert of a field? As for harassment...? In what way have I "harassed" you? Comments on your talk page calling you up on your behaviour...? So because you don't like what I am saying that is harassment? Grow up! If you really believe that I am harassing you. Take to the relevant admin board. I submit to their judgement. MisterShiney ✉ 02:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For all your effort in trying to maintain some form of order in the aftermath of xkcd-gate. Nobody killed anybody, which I see as something to be proud of. drewmunn talk 10:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Meant a lot. Especially after the mud flinging going on on certain pages. Took a little to heart. MisterShiney ✉ 22:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Answering an edit summary question

Re this edit: that edit. (Replacing thread title with relevant one that does not violate WP:CIV.) —Frungi (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah saw. Thanks Frungi. I tried to see where it had been changed, but there were so many edits and I was running out of time. lol. MisterShiney ✉ 18:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Grammar

I think you may find this useful. =) —Frungi (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

STIiD

Please see WP:SUBJECT. Thanks. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what this refers to..? Sorry. MisterShiney ✉ 18:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's meant to be about your reverting the removal of the naming controversy section of the Star Trek Into Darkness article. Or it could just be some form of 'guideline of the day' initiative. drewmunn talk 18:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No more

Please stop leaving messages on User talk:Jack Sebastian. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Why? He is the one not being Civil and insisting on personally attacking other editors. He doesn't seem like the sort of editor who takes criticism well and he needs to learn to be more civil if he wishes to continue editing because his behaviour the last couple of days has been nothing short of abysmal. I appreciate he is an established editor with a fairly positive reputation, but that is no excuse for his behaviour recently and edits on my talk page (all of which can be seen above). His accusations of incivility on my part and saying I have made "dick moves" is wild unfounded accusations, especially when he didn't once provide any form of evidence whatsoever! I just can't believe that no one has warned him about it! Especially when he himself expects editors to "be polite" and he "appreciate politeness in turn" as he says on his talk page. I have not seen any politeness on his part. MisterShiney ✉ 02:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Why? Because they have a right to ask you that, and you have to comply. Really it's that simple, and it has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of your cause. Editor asks you not to post, you don't post. You can take your issues up elsewhere, but you have to stop leaving messages on their talk page. See WP:BLANKING and Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask how you became aware of the situation? It just seems to me like he doesn't like being called up on something so he goes running to an admin. Rather than manning up and admitting they were wrong. I used to have a lot of respect for said editor and since this, just make him seem like the hypocrite. MisterShiney ✉ 13:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your recent editing history at 666 Park Avenue shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. AussieLegend (✉) 02:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well thanks for that. Completely unjustified considering I made 2 edits to the same content and despite seeing it had been reverted AGAIN and having warned the user twice and how they made the same/similar revert FIVE times I left it alone! Only reason I didn't set up a talk page was because I was on my phone and in bed at the time and would be very difficult to link to relevant policies. MisterShiney ✉ 06:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You made 3 reversions in only 2.5 hours, so you were a gnat's whisker from a 3RR breach.[1][2][3] Despite your assertions, Facebook can be used as a reliable source - see WP:FACEBOOK. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In defence of that, one was completely unrelated to the facebook content. But I do appreciate getting back to me and the link. MisterShiney ✉ 07:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

They still count as reverts for the purpose of 3RR. I'm sure you wouldn't want to find yourself blocked for inadvertently breaching 3RR. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thank's very much for the heads up Aussie. I was not aware that it still counted if you undid/removed. Shall remember this for next time. MisterShiney ✉ 17:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See note

at Talk:666 Park Avenue#Edit warring. Steven Walling • talk 04:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Cookie of Apology™

I was a bit too rough on you. I am sorry.Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The cartoon

Sorry if I did anything wrong. I just found it funny and wanted to share. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's fine buddy. It just was the cause of a whole load of hassle last week and things are just simmering down. All over a stupid cartoon. It basically threw a can of petrol over a few embers. Wasn't pretty. MisterShiney ✉ 19:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Then please have some Turkish tea with the cookie. (Don't know how to add a glass of tea. :-) --E4024 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Similar Pleasure

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Likewise, and I hope we can collaborate in the future. drewmunn talk 09:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

February

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to User talk:MervinVillarreal. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which "attacks" are you referring too? MisterShiney ✉ 00:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

TROLL will do nicely, even if we ignore the rest of them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

They were hardly personal attacks. Borderline at best. I could of said a lot worse considering his repeated behaviour. It was a comment designed to make him perk up and think. Hence why they were linked to relevant articles where they are used to identify foolish behaviour on the part of the person receiving them. Were no way intended as a Personal Attack. I am always very particular in my comments so that they are not perceived as such. But your point is well seen. MisterShiney ✉ 01:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Noble, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fringe (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) 11:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Dead Man Down

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I did link the Reddit interview source at the bottom. You are lying. Penelope37 (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2013‎

Ok first of, do not accuse another editor of lying without finding tangible proof. Secondly, Reddit is not a Reliable source as it is user submitted. And thirdly, Promotional Sections are not included in film articles as per WP:NOTPROMOTION and the standardised formate found in the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Film - which does not include a promotional section. MisterShiney ✉ 20:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It was proved as they talked about it on the official site and facebook. The Director and Writer held up signs for it to prove it if you READ it. So yes you were lying or too lazy to check. But I didn't know we weren't allowed to list promotional despite almost every film here talking about the different promotional advertisements used for the film. I won't edit war, but you are blatantly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penelope37 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I was not lying. I strongly urge you to change your attitude , accusing other editors of lying is not acceptable behaviour. Having searched the official site, there is zero mention of the so called interview, that I could see. As for being "lazy" it is not the job of readers and other editors to check each and every source as it appears, each source should stand up to scrutiny and sources must be strong enough to support the claim. MisterShiney ✉ 22:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's right on the official facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=164378277045788&set=a.141235409360075.32065.109116999238583&type=1&theater which gives a link to here bit.ly/DMDAMA which shows the writer and director holding up signs it is also talked about on the official twitter https://twitter.com/deadmandownfilm

And no I don't have an attitude problem. I'm simply stating facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penelope37 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No. You are stating incorrect accusations. I would ask that in future you keep them to yourself and as I have said previously, always assume good faith. And as I have previously stated, sources should be strong enough to support their claim and readers should not have to go anywhere else to confirm information contained in articles. This discussion is now closed. MisterShiney ✉ 00:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.