Hi John, as an uninvolved admin, would you mind keeping a careful eye on this situation - User_talk:Fastily#Your_threat_to_block which is a reply to Fastily here? It relates to discussion at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#Music_examples. In the past, User:Fastily blocked me indefinitely without a lot of explanation, after some urging from User:Hearfourmewesique. I submitted an unblocking request and was unblocked.
Following recent discussion at the article talk page consensus emerged against Hearfourmewesique's view, so he canvassed for some support and Fastily has threatened to ban me indefinitely again, without an explanation. For the life of me I can't see a reason that he would, unless there is some residual resentment to his original ban being overturned by another admin. At the very least, i would hope he would take a step back and leave this to other admins. Thanks in advance for your help. --hippo43 (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will take a look at that. A preliminary glance suggests there's a fair bit of reading to do and I'm just off to bed. I promise to look into it some time tomorrow. --John (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read up on it and will continue to watch. I may drop Fastily a line to ask what is going on, although if there is no current threat to block, perhaps there is no need. --John (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was a bit perturbed by your removal of descriptors regarding critical acclaim and flops in this article. Each and every statement you removed is backed with references that support those statements. This article retained its good article status in August 2009 following a very in-depth review and discussion regarding it. The reviewer was quite tough about demanding adequate sourcing. The statements in the lead section are a reflection of sourced content in the main body of the article. At no time are any statements contained in the article that represent editor POV and actually do reflect critical commentary that is sourced.
Main body of article
The statement "Johansson marked her transition to adult roles in a pair of 2003 films. In the much heralded Sofia Coppola film Lost in Translation" was sourced to this source which gave it an 89/100 and is termed universal acclaim.
The statement "Johansson found equal praise for her role as Griet in Peter Webber's Girl with a Pearl Earring." was sourced to supporting critical statements by four different high profile film critics and was supported by sourced mentions of a number of awards she won or for which she was nominated.
The statement "2008 brought an upturn in critical reception for Johansson's performances." followed a section that covered some films that flopped or were less than enthusiastically received, also adequately sourced. It is sourced by critical commentary that some films during that period were not well received, but still brought Johannson praise for her own work in the films.
Lead
The statement in the lead "Johansson rose to fame with her role in 1998's The Horse Whisperer and subsequently gained critical acclaim for her breakout performance in Ghost World in 2001, for which she won the Chlotrudis Award for Best Supporting Actress." Was supported in the main article from sourced content of "Although the film was not a box office success, she received praise for her breakout role in the critically acclaimed 2001 film, Ghost World." The statement that it was a breakout role was sourced to a The Los Angeles Times review. The statement that the film was critically praised is source to both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. The sentence was not hyperbole or POV, it was sourced to solid references.
The statement that Lost in Translation was critically acclaimed film is also sourced in the section regarding that film.
Describing The Nanny Diaries as a critical flop was supported in the article body with sourced content regarding critical reactions and also to box office results.
The statement in the lead that "She received positive reviews for her appearance in He's Just Not That into You (2009)" is sourced in the main article with quotes from referenced critical reviews that said: "The San Francisco Chronicle review noted that the film "never soars, but it never flags" yet lauds Johansson, saying "she has become a deft comic actress."[91] The Los Angeles Times calls the film an "anti-romantic romantic comedy" and cites the scenario in which Johansson appears with Jennifer Connelly and Bradley Cooper as having "more meat than others", making it "one of the best."[92] The Baltimore Sun criticized the film, saying it "stumbles somewhat when it tries to get serious", but praised Johansson for "proving she doesn't need Woody Allen to be funny."[93]".
Thus I'm puzzled by the removal of GA review vetted and solidly sourced statements that describe critical reactions to Johannson's performances with an edit summary of "ce, npov". Nothing has been added to these statements since the GA review and are decidedly not POV statements added by editors here, but instead are wholly supported to statements that supported each and every statement. This is all sourced content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PEACOCK. It is better to detail (as you have done above) the exact nature of the "critical acclaim" than to say after each work is mentioned that it was "critically acclaimed". I am glad it is sourced; that should make rewriting it a lot easier. --John (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my point is that there were no instances of WP:PEACOCK violations in the article since every single point you removed was well sourced. The details were already present before the comments were removed. There were no instances of blanket mentions of critical acclaim that were not fully supported by references and explicit examples. And excuse me? Why on earth would you endeavor to "rewrite" an article that recently passed GA after a thorough and in-depth review where everything you removed was acceptable and fully and solidly sourced and included examples that also supported wording? There was a passel of work gone into retaining the GA status by more than one editor. No offense meant, but why would one editor's viewpoint override a GA reviewer and more than one involved editor? T%his article has had few major changes and relatively few minor changes since it passed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have a BLP and we have a very willing and able responsive editor. If you are interested in improving the article feel free to enumerate actionable claims. However, if you look at the recent edits you will see they were largely stylistic cosmetics. There was no peacocking overhaul.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You keep mentioning these "actionable claims" that you wish me to make. It seems really simple to me (and indeed resolved now anyway); here is my original edit, which removed material that failed WP:PEACOCK. User:Wildhartlivie restored the offending material so I placed an article improvement tag and raised my concerns in article talk. Another user then re-removed the peacock terms, so, as I say, the matter is now resolved. User:Tyrenius seems to have understood the issue as well. I hope you can too, eventually. --John (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit and the edits by the WP:SOCK took out the following substantive phrases:
From the WP:LEAD (which are properly attributed elsewhere)
gained critical acclaim for her breakout performance
critically acclaimed
the critical flop
received positive reviews
Elsewhere with proper citations
Johansson marked her transition to adult roles in a pair of 2003 films. In the much heralded
found equal praise for her role as
2008 brought an upturn in critical reception for Johansson's performances.
My question to you is do you understand WP:PEACOCK to refer to "Words . . . used without attribution. . . [that is not] plainly summarizing verifiable information" The content that you removed was attributed and was summarizing verifiable information. Why is PEA even relevant? Furthermore, a look at some of the most recently passed featured content such as Brad Pitt, which passed WP:FA five weeks ago uses the same style.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reread "plainly summarizing verifiable information" and ask yourself if the examples you name above truly fulfill this description. It is my contention and the consensus of the community that they do not. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a frequently derided justification for things that are wrong here. Rather than working down to a faulty system of quality control, why not improve articles and make them more closely conform to our policies and our mission, as I am trying to do? --John (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strike your pejorative comments here and I'll think about it. Failing that, there are plenty of basic English classes in most communities. --John (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that you consider enrolling one of those classes youself John, as I see nothing "pejorative" in the diff to which you link. Certainly nothing that compares with your own stubborn rudeness anyway, as here. MalleusFatuorum14:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you keep the discussion in one place at Talk:Scarlett_Johansson#Peacock_terms. In a nutshell, "positive" is a value judgement, not a summation of fact. How much praise constitutes "positive"? Was there no reservation or toning in the reviews etc? What exactly were the reviews positive about - her looks, her dialogue, her characterisation? And in what way were they positive? Etc. Ty15:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Malleus, I was wondering when you would show up. Still inhabiting the "he did it first" universe, eh? Still, I am glad to see your "retirement" lasted only as long as snow on a dyke in Spring. Welcome back! Tony, here is a hint for you. Which would you say is better; "received positive reviews", or "received 8.5 out of 10 on Rotten Tomatoes" (for example)?--John (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are both better than removal of the encyclopedic content that you endorse. Either one properly cited imparts knowledge to the reader. If a reader is not familiar with rotten tomatoes the former is less confusing and if he is, the latter is better. I am not sure we should assume all readers are familiar with RT. Do you have a reason why we should?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You persistently miss the point John. Perhaps you ought to try teaching "Remedial Logic for Beginners" instead of English; you might learn something. You continually demand standards of what you deem civility from others that you are so far from reaching yourself that you'd need a bus to get there. MalleusFatuorum16:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. That's, er, fascinating Malleus. Thank you for your valued insight as usual. Er, shouldn't you be off writing a featured article or something? There's at least one article desperately in need of improvement. As I see you are able to correctly use the word "continually" you should definitely be able to do something there. Have at it! --John (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, describe it as "film review site RT" and/or wikilink it. That's the usual procedure round these here parts. Ty15:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but if you're unable to see why what I took out was bad writing then I can't explain it to you. My suggestion about an English class wasn't intended as an insult btw; teaching one has really helped me and maybe something like this really is what you need. I suggest that per Ty any further discussion on improving the Scarlett Johansson is best continued at Talk:Scarlett Johansson#Peacock terms, where a consensus has developed that the changes I made were good ones and that more needs to be done to rescue the poor writing to make this article truly a GA. Will you join me there towards that end? --John (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but next time you think a BLP has bad english, don't tag it with an inappropriate tag such as {tl|PEACOCK}}. It is bad form to do so when the BLP is on the verge of a publicity push that will bring it 100K+ page views per day.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. What would you suggest I do if I remove breathless schoolgirl writing from an article and someone blind reverts me? I don't buy the argument (in fact I find it truly hilarious) that an article improvement tag somehow reflects badly on the subject of the article. --John (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from my talk page: Jack has had it out for Wildhartlivie ever since this. Every time I see where Wildhartlive is having a RfC-type discussions, there pops Jack (and often User:Chowbok) with those unhelpful snide remarks. He knows it pisses WHL off but just adds fuel to the fire, per usual. Therefore I reminded him that it shouldn't be used as a battleground, but it will be ignored, just as his behavior is by admins. MikeAllen05:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Do you think your intervention helped calm or resolve the situation? I thought that it did not. It might be better in future to explain a little of the background when having personal disputes with other users. Eventually, letting go and forgiving might be worth a shot too, if you can do it. --John (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza War fix
Thanks there's been trouble on the article the last day or so glad you came in and fixed the titles in the lead and infobox. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:HolyWilliesPrayerTitlePage.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:HolyWilliesPrayerTitlePage.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
.jpg){kind=link}
