User talk:AndrewOne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, AndrewOne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — ξxplicit 04:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

July 2010[edit]

Information.svg Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Maya (M.I.A. album) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. –Chase (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study[edit]

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Kubrick[edit]

Personally, if asked to name THE most influential director of all time, I would tie Kubrick dead even with Orson Welles, probably DW Griffith, and perhaps Cecil B. DeMille and a few others. I would DEFINITELY say his THE most influential director of the 2nd half of the 20th century. But your article edit said "one of the most influential" and I think that's fine.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Greyson Chance album[edit]

Hi, I saw from the revision on Hold On 'Til the Night that you started this page a while back. I just wanted to make you aware that I have now fully updated it as far as I can see possible currently. If you want to add any more, feel free... Do you know if there are any music critic reviews online yet? Nathan | talk 19:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unadjusted grosses[edit]

Andrew, while I commend your dedication to adding a bit of perspective to box office grosses for older films, I must ask you to stop doing so. Many of the grosses you are adjusting are not from the year of release, but from subsequent re-releases. Snow White for instance only made $8 million from its original release, and made about $40 million from its last re-release in the 1990s, so adjusting the gross to its 1937 value is very unrepresentative of its adjusted value. As far as I'm aware, unfortunately there are no charts for adjusted worldwide gross. Betty Logan (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A pie for you in thanks.[edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg That's my second barnstar (out of six) just for my work on the Kubrick article. Much thanks. WickerGuy (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

December 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about this issue and the article has been semi-protected to prevent further changes. By altering the wording without participating in the discussion on the talk page is unconstructive]]. Betty Logan (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Welles userbox[edit]

Here's one:

Orson Welles 1937.jpg This user thinks that
Orson Welles is the greatest
director of all time.




Best, Old Beeg 07:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...[edit]

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Politics of France may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] behaviors: lowering of the age of consent for homosexual sex to that for heterosexual sex (since the [[French Revolution]], France had never criminalized homosexuality between adults in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to French literature may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • in the most honorable form."<ref>http://www.aljazeera.com/focus/2009/10/2009101212723118884.html]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC at Wikipedia for page protection[edit]

Last call for opinions on RFC at Wikipedia page for page protection extension. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roy Del Ruth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Ruth next directed ''[[The Babe Ruth Story]]'' (1948), with Babe Ruth played by [[William Bendix]]). Bending historical truths lest he offend, Del Ruth's biopic was rushed through production amidst

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


no wp:self published source[edit]

Per the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews there's a very clear consensus here that Scaruffi is not to be used as a source in music/album articles in any capacity. So please, do not add his reviews to review charts or his opinions in reception sections anymore. It is a wp:self published source. Since this is a long running dispute, any contributor warned by the situation and who doesn't respect it, would encounter sanctions and could be blocked from editing. Thanks. You've been informed because you used this source here. Woovee (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Francoise Hardy - La question.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Francoise Hardy - La question.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. B (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

La Question (album)[edit]

Bonjour AndrewOne, J’avais cru bien faire en remplaçant l’image du compact disque de 1995 par l’image de la couverture originelle de 1972 (que j’avais mise en « Fair Use »). C’est certain, j’aurais du certainement vous en aviser. Veuillez m’en excuser. Je voulais simplement coller au plus près de l’origine de l’album puisque j’avais modifié l’infobox et l’article. Ce n’était qu’une tentative d’incursion dans wikipedia en anglais de ma part alors que d’habitude je travaille plutôt dans Wiki en français. Apparemment cela n’est pas couronné de succès. Tant pis pour moi. Cordialement, Lézard (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Tyler[edit]

Please add a page number to the source Crepol in your recent edit. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Information icon Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ancient astronaut hypothesis. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The deletion of the removed word does not qualify as an addition of "commentary or [my] own personal analysis" to the page's lead section. Also, the presence of the word "pseudoscientific" is no less objective or encyclopedic than the absence of it, as this word (and its derivatives) are inherently pejorative. A truly neutral account would be one which informed readers that the ancient astronaut hypothesis is widely regarded as, or generally considered to be, pseudoscientific. AndrewOne (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, AndrewOne. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Ideas.
Message added 09:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I made the userbox for you. How is it? Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa123|UPage|☺★ (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oba Chandler[edit]

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article about Oba Chandler. It is a article that I have edited a lot over the years. So any improvements etc are welcomed. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'm just the messenger. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Puffery[edit]

Please see WP:PEACOCK. To say that a film received "critical acclaim", especially when it's without a source, is puffery. Instead, just flatly report the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic ratings, as Anomalisa already did. Introducing your own analysis of the film's reception is original research. We don't have to label everything as "critical acclaim", "critics raved about", etc. As the MOS suggests, simply describe the factual events, such as awards, review aggregators, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please refresh your memory on the proper use of indefinite articles[edit]

Your Engrish edit to Star Wars: The Force Awakens on 26 December 2015 has been reverted.

Please refresh your memory on the proper use of indefinite articles. Thank you for your cooperation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Coolcaesar,

I will assume good faith and your mistake. There is no incorrect usage of an indefinite article in any of the three edits I made to the page on December 27th, 2015 (the date which is shown for my account in the page's edit history). Also, you did not actually revert an edit of mine, your criticism of the inclusion of "a" aside. In any event, "With a box office gross of [...]" is not grammatically improper, nor is "a global box office revenue of [...]". It is true that one would be expected to write, "The film has generated revenue" rather than, "The film has generated a revenue"; but note that in this case a preposition ("of") immediately follows.

Also, your use of the word "cumulative" is redundant, since the sentence already states that the film "has" garnered something "as of" the current date. If a film is in theatrical release, its box office gross will be cumulative (unless, of course, absolutely nobody is going to see it). AndrewOne (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
...a much deserved barnstar! I was fascinated by your small but incredibly skillful edits here. ...with appreciation for, and admiration of, your beautiful English writing skills. very best wishes, tous mes meilleurs vœux, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, with admiration and congratulations...[edit]

@Checkingfax and Corinne:

Hello. I sent you a much deserved barnstar! I was fascinated by your small buy incredibly skillful edits here

It may not seem like much to you, as is often the case for those who possess a skill, ...as I look on "with what I most enjoy, contented least". Although I have several mother tongues—my literature studies were in four languages over 8 years—I studied English privately; and so, I do so much appreciate subtle refinements in English. Editor Checkingfax and myself created an English version of an article on Michael Laucke; the French version is also complete and I am presently creating the Spanish, and then German versions. But I digress Face-smile.svg. The article has been nominated for GA status, and, (holding breath), if I could infringe upon your kindness to do but one of your magic edits, I know it would be a lasting inspiration to me. Editor Corinne did some a while back and it was so motivating. At any rate, if you don't have the time, "so little of which is given to us on this our mortal orb", it has nonetheless been a great pleasure to write to you and express my appreciation for, and admiration of, your beautiful English writing skills. PS. I just loved your userpage; ...so interesting... Very best wishes, tous mes meilleurs vœux, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg My deepest appreciation for your refined and tasteful editing on the Michael Laucke article. Besides the beautiful subtleties you brought to bear, I enjoyed studying how you implemented various turns of phrase, and better organized the chronology in the Early career section. In the lead section, I would be amiss not to mention the tasteful 'crescendo' you created from beginning to end and the elimination of redundancy. Finally, observing how you re-shaped paragraphs from "les grandes lignes" (in French), in other words "from the broadest perspective" was so interesting. Fabulous! very best wishes, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies on the Straub-Huillet revert[edit]

Forgive me, as I (overly hastily) looked over the site in question, I didn't notice the aggregation element and concluded that this was just someone's opinion (if you've edited as many Indian film articles as I have, you come to expect puffery and peacockery). I was in error and will be more cautious in the future. Please keep up the good work! :) Best wishes, Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Undone edits[edit]

Hey AndrewOne. You have undone my edits on Emily Dickinson article. Would you please let me know why? Thanks, Pirehelo (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Pirehelo,

I did not undo your edits; I believe you have made a mistake. Looking at the revision history, it appears a user named "DrKay" undid them and directed you to a Wikipedia manual page on primary sources.

Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you are right. My bad. Thanks, Pirehelo (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Camille Paglia 2010s.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Camille Paglia 2010s.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss before you change entries on Lars Von Trier Wiki[edit]

Cinema for Peace is not a film award, it is a social initiative, political, humanitarian award, given for the overall or a large part of a career of a director for the content of their films, hence entering the info on the "what themes his work is famous for" paragraph on the lead. It has nothing to do with the Cannes film prizes mentioned later. You are also changing the best known for films on the lead, wishing to add Dogville as one of them. Von Trier did not become famous for this film. By famous (known for) im referring to the public sphere and the film world. If you divide his career you will see that Europa is the first film to catch significant public attention (critics and audience), Breaking the waves is the second (his first box office success), Dancer in the Dark the third (both awards and box office) and melancholia his forth (for media frenzy during cannes, box office and awards). I have cited the box office sales and the awards. If you think other criteria should apply, please discuss. In all cases, please discuss, don't just delete entries that require effort in research to make. Please: discusss. Many thanks. June 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augstn (talkcontribs) 18:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


I will for now assume that you are making these edits in good faith. In any event, let's address your complaints in order.

1. Cinema for Peace is a group that aims to call attention to the social and political relevance that cinema as an art form is capable of; their awards ceremony thus honors films of high social/political relevance. Any ceremony in which an award is given to a director for their body of work could, by definition, reasonably be called a film award. Why would it not be?

2. As I said before in an edit summary, one cannot argue that Europa is better-known than Dogville. As of July 2015, Rotten Tomatoes has gathered 13 reviews for the former and 164 for the latter; IMDb has counted under 16,000 for the former and over 107,000 for the latter. The scholarly tabulation linked here provides evidence that the former is more acclaimed.

Now, I'd like to address some of your changes that were unexplained in this post to my talk page. Firstly, it is unnecessary for any lead section to have so many citations, especially in the middles of sentences. Secondly, the "uncannily humorous" in the paragraph discussing the themes of his work is not encyclopedic, and (as one who has seen many of his films and read writings about them) does not reflect general opinion of von Trier's works. Lastly, the overall tone of your version is too biased and borders on puffery. I have thus changed it again. AndrewOne (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

---

I disagree with you Andrewone. I also noticed on your talk page many remarks about you often changing entries without providing good cites.

1. Cinema for peace is not a film award, it is not given for artistic achievements. It should be mentioned in connection with the content of the films of von Trier, the themes he his work is famous for.

2. Reviews on rotten and imdb popularity are not relevant to what the "famous for" objective is (wikipedia is not a ratings website), they are too variable and can change any time when our goal is to write long lasting info (please read carefully the guidelines of wikipedia regarding living persons biographies, we need academic and established writers cites and we must avoid variables like reviews or articles written based on ephemeral events). In the case of the films he is "known for", you should provide cites regarding the films box office sales and critics/academics/awards merit. Dogville does not qualify and I think Augstn's career landmark breakdown is correct. Trier made Dancer in the Dark a few years before Dogville, so the period is covered by Dancer in the Dark. You must also consider that Europa was made before internet existed, so academic/historical cites are necessary and they have been provided as I see. I tried to find academic/historical cites that would regard Dogville artistically/commercially significant and I didnt (please provide them if you have them). Most books about von trier's career merit Europa as representative. It was a milestone, Dogville wasn't. The lead should have the milestones.

3. Augstn is providing really good cites. Please spend some time and read them. You cannot suggest we replace these very high quality cites with rotten tomatoes and imdb. By the way another golden rule for living persons biographies (to avoid bias) is double and triple citing, why are you objecting on this?

4. I don't see any puffery, the lead is very similar to leads of other pages about famous artists/directors. In fact it is quite concise comparing to other film directors' wiki page leads of the same generation, wave etc.

I urge you to read and understand the rules on living person biographies, refrain from writing based on your own experience (having watched trier films is not a cite), read the cites that are given from the writers before deleting, and since there is a consensus against your claims, discuss and wait for a consensus before deleting.

Let's enjoy this, not turn it into a fight and let's continue to in good faith

Kinema (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)



I ll add to the concensus: ur cites are weak, based on the existing cites Europa looks like a landmark film. As for the award, it belongs to the part where his humanitarian themes are described. The descriptions are well cited (including his themes, the "humorous" one is a cited quote (i was tempted to add quotation marks but the word is kept repeated as a characteristic of his plots in 2 more cites on the lead), its university material. Its always a tricky one with living persons biographies, easy to go with the current flow of info. I ll agree that you must understand wikipedia guidlines better on this matter and try to be objective. You are pushing for Dogville too much and have not provided any HQ cites. Bndktfanta (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)



I will partly agree with Andrewone on the "uncannily humorous" issue. I just finished reading the cited material, the word "uncunilly" does come up but more as a remark (of both journalists and scholars) but not a characteristic. The words humorous/comic however are used very often to describe distinct aspects of his work (pretty much on all of his films). Will make correction Kinema (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


As I have two responses to reply to, I will begin with those of Bndktfanta (as his entry is shorter) and then those of Kinema.

Bndktfanta: the "humorous" portion is unnecessary altogether and should be removed entirely. Before, it was not encyclopedic at all; it is now awkward. Also, I have provided citations for both the popularity of and acclaim for Dogville (and, as I will explain, Kinema inadvertently gave me one).

Kinema: (1) the Cinema for Peace (CfP) sentence can now go in either paragraph, as it has apparently been rewritten in order to emphasize the social/political aspect of the ceremony. Even here things remain a little rocky, however: the sentence mentioning his overall award wins and nominations comes right after it. This is a somewhat awkward order, and I would once again keep the CfP sentence at the end of the awards-centered paragraph.

(2) The sites I mentioned in my first response to you – Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb – were not meant to be cited on the page but to be used on this talk page in gauging the popularity of the films in question. Rotten Tomatoes is a reliable source, and it is not based on "ephemeral events" (?). Also, it is worth noting that if you are going by the "best-known" works of a director, you will indeed sometimes see a little change over decades (especially with auteurs, as certain works of theirs can be initially misunderstood and only later recognized as masterpieces). IMDb is by far the predominant film-centered social media site. The funny thing is that you yourself precariously cited IMDb in an argument that Europa is considered more notable than Dogville (which it once again isn't), giving this link: [1]. A simple "Ctrl + F" search will reveal that, on this list, Dogville has won or been nominated for nearly twice as many awards as Europa. But, once again, I would not cite IMDb in the page, as citing it for awards information is disputed.

You accuse me of not having provided a source for Dogville's being a better-known work when you inadvertently found one yourself. Furthermore, I gave in my first response a link to a page on Bill Georgaris' They Shoot Pictures, Don't They, a site on which scholarly tabulations of the most acclaimed films and directors are posted. Georgaris' numerical breakdown of the acclaim for von Trier appears here: [2]. This clearly indicates that not only Dogville, but even a film like The Idiots, today receives more praise than Europa. Another good example is the film's number of votes on the British Film Institute's Sight & Sound polls, but TSPDT is to my mind better for this purpose. As Box Office Mojo shows, Dogville was also a more commercially successful film during its theatrical run.

(3) You argue that a golden rule for living persons' biographies is double- and triple-citing, when it is in fact highly atypical for the lead section on any artist to be crammed with citations to academic articles. You can look at the page of virtually any other filmmaker regarded as a major director; you will not find that.

(4) You need to do more study of what constitutes puffery, and of what its warning signs are – and no, I would not say that the page is more "concise" than those of other modern directors.

You ostensibly warn me against writing Wikipedia statements based on my own experiences, and write that simply viewing his films is not a citation. I have in actuality provided several sources, and one of the sources on your version of this page (which, once again, arguably should not be on the page) even defended my own argument. I have been a Wikipedia editor for a long time, especially of film pages. You are not supposed to fill a lead section with laudatory statements and triple-citations to academic writings, owing to the fact that strong lead sections are overviews of what is generally thought (by critics, etc.) and/or that which is fact about the subject, and thus should not contain statements that have to be extensively defended. By the way, if you're going to imply that you don't want to run off the weeds with someone, don't make one of the first sentences in your response to them a silly attempt to harm their reputation.

The current lead section will once again be replaced with mine. In the meantime, please try and discuss some of the academic sources to the currently empty section on praise and criticism of von Trier's work. AndrewOne (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)



You suggest things without justiying your sources. The sources regarding the definition "humorous" as one of trier films characteristics is cited well. If you can provide better cites that don't refer to it, please do. Until then, this issue must be considered resolved.

CFP line was rewritten to make it clear that it is not refering to artistic merit. You are not precise by calling it "overall award wins" sentence. Its a sentence (paragraph rather) that gives just the highlights of his films. The lead in general should only give a summary of what this man is famous for and worthy of a wiki. There was an early lead entry that had all awards and honors together, including his knighthood. This makes no sense, the reader must be able to understand what is this person's work famous for, not what badges he has. Its most distinct characteristic is the humanitarian themes. So distinct they seem to be that they were awarded (this is the point of the CFP entry,not to add one more award). I think we should also consider this issue resolved dear Andrew.

Regarding IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes: These kind of citations should be avoided when we refer to value/merit, because they can only provide statistics. A social media site as you call IMDB, is accordig to othe policy for living persons biographies (LPB) forbidden as forms of contextural reference. The reference I have uses is a simple list of his awards on IMDB, so the user can count how many times each of hisfilms was awarded, to comply with the already discussed logic we should fllow when deciding which films to include on the lead as "known for" (a balance of critic/award perception and box office success). We could say "popular for" but I don't think you will find anyone wanting to use such term for a von triewe wiki. I agree that the best-known for auteurs changed through the decades (if they keep producing films) but there is no high-quality reference stating that Dogville is one of them (by the way, if you read the top critics from the established associations you will see that the vast majority finds Manderlay far more important comparing to Dogville - everyone always compares the two, often seeing them as one). And you keep making the same mistake: u refer to films that receive praise, or are being mostly reviewed and so on. That is not the point. He could be best known for an awful film that nobody praises its quality, but if it was a milestone/breakthrough film on his career, that would be one of the films that he is best known for.

As for the double citing: why don't you read the rules (they are written, i am not assuming them, check the guidelines about LPB wikipedia has as a very strict policy. I agree that the lead is overly cited but i think that von trier is a controversial person, so the double citation high quality links rule is on this case even more important.

I invite you to look through the whole page and not get too fixated with the lead (for now) because there is a consensus for it (for now) that does not follow your logic (things do change). The page needs a lot of work and your contribution would be very much appreciated. Let's stop spending so much time on this small mention (we can return to it later, after having achieved to mae the page at its whole read better. Your constant deletion of the lead is counter productive for all of us. Please, try to be less hostile Kinema (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


Lars von Trier Wiki: what you are doing is vandalism[edit]

AndrewOne, you keep deleting the same sentences, and words, over and over again. Every day, five days now, against everyone else's consensus against your changes. "An absurdly over-biased heading" (your edit description) is a personal opinion, not a well-justified reason that explains what you changed and why (technical-grammatical-contextual explanation). Augustn 20:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augstn (talkcontribs)


No, it is not vandalism. Read my responses in the previous section of this talk page, and take another look at some of the edits of mine that you have reverted. AndrewOne (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi AndrewOne. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Terrence Malick. Please do not add original research, which refers to material for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It was not poorly referenced at all. See my comment on the article's talk page. AndrewOne (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It was. See my response there, and please read WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH. Dan56 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Nicomachean Ethics[edit]

I removed your template on Nicomachean Ethics although I understand the point and want to make sure you realize that. I think however that the template is not quite right.

  • First of all it advises that the articles should be expanded, which clearly does not fit the case quite well. I think your real point is not that the article is too short, but that it is not "secondary" enough? I agree with that to an extent, and the article overall could make more references to secondary works, though I think the template exaggerates the lack of them, and doing this is not quite as simple as the template suggests...
  • Second you did not take the specific problems of this subject into account, and indeed these have been registered over the years on the talk page...
  • Firstly, this is a work with thousands of years of complex and controversial secondary commentary. Every chapter of the book even has the same problem. For many points there are dozens of major positions that could not be ignored, and sometimes very much in conflict with each other.) To really deal with each of them well, I think the book's main article needs to be seen as a the main article, with specialized articles coming off it.
  • But secondly it is hard to make a short main article concerning this book because the second problem is how complex it is, and how many different ways it is read. The summary is actually very compressed. (So to add more secondary material you would only make the article longer. You could not just remove all basic summary could you?)

Inevitably then, there is a conflict between the two standard WP aims mentioned above (reasonable article length and based on secondary references). This is why, in order to at least get a core article which other articles can link to, a fairly detailed review has been needed, which explains in one place what the book contains at least, in a reasonably neutral way. Or at least this is the only solution anyone has proposed so far and frankly not many people are willing and able to work on an article like this without making it worse. Anyone proposing changes needs to grapple with this in detail, not just post a template, which could make the article worse. The way I see it in terms of the norms on Wikipedia, this is one of those compressed main articles we often have for a big subject - basically just used to link to the more detailed topics. The reason it does not look like it is because it is long. I suppose eventually other solutions can be tried but they will be a massive restructuring, not just a bit more sourcing? For example following the philosophy I have used, we could turn this article into one which really is short, and make articles for each book, moving something like the current sub sections to the new articles, making it more obvious that the article should be used as a starting point. But that could really go wrong and does not necessarily solve the problems mentioned on your template. (But currently, the main offshoot articles are more thematic, for example book 5 can and should be covered by an article on Aristotle's theory of justice, comparing it to his other known works for example. So arguably an article for every book would not be the right thing to do.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Also, you're invited to participate in this talk page section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 October[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Terrence Malick, you may be blocked from editing. Dan56 (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Dude, what the fuck is your problem?? You're not a new editor. You are familiar with WP:BOLD. Your addition was justifiably reverted and explained at length at the article's talk page, again. You're being unreasonable. Don't push this edit war further. Direct your efforts to the talk page or create an RfC and get consensus. Dan56 (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong in considering my addition(s) incorrect, as I have said before. Your preferred version of the page's lead section is of lesser accuracy, as I have also tried to explain.

Please do not use profanity on my talk page. AndrewOne (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Terrence Malick shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Dan56 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Terrence Malick. Dan56 (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Francoise Hardy - La question.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Francoise Hardy - La question.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Jacques Rivette[edit]

Hi, So the Rivette page was very long and all of the sections that I removed I moved toThemes and style in the works of Jacques Rivette, which itself needs a lot more work but I will get to it.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in edit warring over this, so would you object if I reverted your edit with an explanation?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

I noticed your recent edit to Iraq Liberation Act does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → check Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, AndrewOne. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

Please stop making edits which do not reflect established consensus that has been discussed at the article's talk page, as you did here. Such edits may constitute vandalism and can result in the loss of your editing privileges. Please discuss controversial edits on the talk page. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, you may be blocked from editing. Dan56 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
(Notification per WP:CAN.)

Scorsese main page[edit]

1) In 2016 Mean Streets has been ranked on BBC's "The 100 Greatest American Films" list ,in 2013 it has been ranked seventh among the top 10 Greatest films of all time by Entertainment Weekly,in 2008 it was ranked in 377th place among Empire Magazine's "The 500 Greatest Movies of all time", so yes, it's regularly ranked among the greatest films of all time. 2)"The Last Temptation of Christ",after the controversy, has been subject of critical reappraisal and is now considered a Scorsese landmark film,in fact it's the only Scorsese film that is in the "Criterion Collection",the site says :"'The Last Temptation of Christ' is a towering achievement,the film can now be viewed as the remarkable, profoundly personal work of faith that it is." So the edit is correct and reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.185.218 (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Mean Streets was 93rd on that first list, and only American films were eligible for placement on it, so as far as the disputed sentence is concerned, we can do away with that source. That leaves you with a ranking of seventh on one Entertainment Weekly poll and another ranking at 377th in an Empire poll that was largely determined by readers. That isn't enough to back up the statement that Mean Streets is considered one of the greatest movies of all time. You also need sources for Cape Fear being a "landmark" work. AndrewOne (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Meow[edit]

Morphdog (t - c) 16:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Terrence Malick. Dan56 (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Citing a press release promoting a film's digital restoration, and a CBS News slideshow promoting Richard Gere, is utterly laughable. Dan56 (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Genius[edit]

Hello, AndrewOne! I found also the next texts: ""emotional intelligence" needs to be changed to affective intelligence (measured as AQ) to make the terminology compatible with the physiology of the brain." "Low affective intelligence is often associated with compensatory techniques. One of them is acquisition of vast semantic knowledge. For this reason, a genius is a man with very limited affective intelligence." http://www.lucidpages.com/intel.html "Patients with mental disorders have lower overall emotional intelligence. Several studies have shown that emotional abilities are of particular relevance to psychological health and wellbeing". https://www.uni-bamberg.de/fileadmin/uni/fakultaeten/ppp_lehrstuehle/psychologie_4/pressearchiv/Emotional_Intelligence_as_a_Factor_in_Mental_Health.pdf Maybe now all right? I'm afraid that if i'll add these links to the article, I will lose the editing capabilities, you can help? Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI post[edit]

Was any action taken after your ANI post regarding the Scorsese articles? Last I looked, there hadn't even been any admin. response. It's frustrating to take a persistent problem to ANI, as we are repeatedly told to do, and then see no action – not even a response – for one's troubles. I have requested page protection for Silence again because I am simply tired of cleaning up after anon. edits. The Sisyphean struggle goes on. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Not any action that I know of, other than Yamla's answer. The post has by now been archived. Some articles have been protected since, while others have yet to be addressed appropriately. AndrewOne (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've gotten some good results from page protection requests. Individual IPs have been blocked, but as I've said repeatedly, he changes IPs so often, these blocks are of limited value. Only long-term page protection will work. But, we now have 3-4 admins aware of his activities, so we might get some results. Thanks for your efforts. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for reinstating a challenged (reverted) edit without obtaining consensus on the page Sean Spicer, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

AndrewOne (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. As a Veteran Editor, I intend only to contribute constructively to the project. I considered the sentence that another user had removed to be relevant, sourced information about Spicer's claim. I felt that removing the sentence would constitute bias in favor of Spicer, and therefore, wanting the full facts given, I reintroduced it. I did not notice the one-revert-rule policy on the page, and apologize for my ignorance of it. When unblocked, I plan to start a section on the talk page concerning the disputed sentence; I will then follow the resulting consensus. Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I would also like to add that I was never warned on my talk page. AndrewOne (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I highly recommend that you pay very close attention to any and all editnotices you ever come across again. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The Searchers[edit]

Regarding your recent alteration to the ranking of The Searchers, you need to provide an up to date reference for this change. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

scorsese di caprio page[edit]

Hi, why did you remove my edit???? It was pertinent,sourced and correctly formatted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.187.82 (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian art userbox[edit]

Hi AndrewOne! I noticed that you left a note on the userboxes idea page asking to be let known if someone made a userbox on appreciation for Russia's contributions to art throughout history. I made one, and so I am letting you know, in case you want to use it. Have a good day! Gilded Snail (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, AndrewOne. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Breaking Bad - Ozymandias desert scene.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Breaking Bad - Ozymandias desert scene.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)