User talk:DNA Cowboy
January 2018
[edit]
Hello, I'm GrapefruitSculpin. I noticed that in this edit to Supercarrier, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. GS ⋙ ☎ 10:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- hello, someone reverted the original article arbitrarily deciding that the ‘supercarrier’ definition referred to one 30 year old source. I was unable to revert the article so updated it was well as I could. Much of the<opening paragraph was designed to lend undue weight to their ‘70k lt’ argument. DNA Cowboy (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, you might to join in on the discussion taking place on the article's talk page where you can voice any concerns on the matter. But GS was right to revert you. You can't remove sourced content and replace it with original research. That would never stand in any article. I see that you are new here, and so I've added a 'welcome' template above. It has plenty of useful information for inexperienced users to help them learn how to get around, so to speak. Please give it a read. Thanks - theWOLFchild 16:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- You misunderstand, I was replacing sourced edits that were there previously and that had been deleted out of hand on the QE-class supercarriers, please refer to the edit history. Unfortunately, I was unable to revert the deletions as there had been numerous changes to the article.DNA Cowboy (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, you might to join in on the discussion taking place on the article's talk page where you can voice any concerns on the matter. But GS was right to revert you. You can't remove sourced content and replace it with original research. That would never stand in any article. I see that you are new here, and so I've added a 'welcome' template above. It has plenty of useful information for inexperienced users to help them learn how to get around, so to speak. Please give it a read. Thanks - theWOLFchild 16:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
February 2018
[edit]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Highlander (film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Please do not blank sourced content based on your own original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Potentially obstructionist that you’d think transparent, helpful edits are ‘not constructive’. Highlander, the film was 100% financed by Thorn EMI as reflected by the sources so why wouldn’t I update the article to reflect the facts? Also, I fail to understand why you think the edit was WP:NOR all you had to do was check the well-sourced EMI Films article which clearly shows the film to be a EMI production. What we have is an issue whereby one source you rely on has confused the issue but there is no doubt according to the sources the film is 100% owned by EMI, ergo country of origin: UK DNA Cowboy (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Country of Origin
[edit]Don't sweat it. NinjaRobotPirate will not get what you're saying, and even if he gets it, he doesn't care. He's pretty hardliner on policy compliance, in other words he just cares to follow the rules, no matter how absurd or wrong they may be. From his perspective, he is right, as are you, from yours. What some admins/editors don't understand is that a reliable source is not always reliable; this can mean that in some cases it has been wrong (humans working there as well), or that some parts of that source's website are not as well scrutinized as others. But we (editors/admins) don't question these sources, and that is fundamentally wrong. It's like not questioning your government. I totally understand where NRP is coming from - and his good intentions, as well as yours - but as I tried (and failed) to explain to him in a similar matter there are some cases, like a film's country of origin where there is no universal policy, even wikipedia admits that. Which, in turn, means that each-reliable-source-has-its-own-rules, and THAT is what wiki editors don't understand around here. BFI will list something as British based on a different logic than when AFI will. This naturally breeds errors and inconsistencies, and wikipedia, by copying the data, is spreading them like a virus.
That is why I agree with you at least on that, we need, as wikipedia, to set our own policy and decide which criteria are the deciding factors for the country of origin. I listed a few myself in the discussion linked, and if you ask me, I will say that what matters above all is who produced it (not who was the executive or who financed it, but who or which company made the creative decisions). So following my logic, Superman is British, Highlander is American and so forth. Based on your logic, Highlander should be British. In the end, I don't care which policy we will follow, but at least we should have one, not just copy and paste what reliable sources list. It's not something objective, so it's not something we should follow blindly without questioning what determines a country of origin. That would only make us accomplices in spreading erroneous data, but apparently some admins don't care about that. Again, not to sound dismissive, I do get that they care by following wiki's protocol, but everyone should learn when to think for themselves and use common sense, and when spotted, report a fallacy and devise ways around that. Punkalyptic (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Punkalyptic: Thank you so much for your response as I was truly bewildered by User:NinjaRobotPirate’s behaviour, he keep accusing me of WP:Original when I wasn’t doing any such thing. With this in mind Would you be prepared to co-sponsor a film/tv policy guideline request? I haven’t been an editor for long on Wikipedia, subsequently, I am unsure as to the method involved for a policy guideline request; however, I do have considerable rw experience of these particular issues.DNA Cowboy (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think we're vastly outgunned on this one. It's a conversation that has been going on for ages on various talk pages. I'm a little inexperienced myself in the ways of addressing policy guidelines and it would need a bit of effort not to come off as disruptive, if we're serious about this. We'll have to gather examples of established reliable sources not being as reliable or consistent when it comes to country of origin. In other words, we'll have to first prove why the current policy isn't working, so we can propose our own. A supportive admin voice in advance would help a lot, as I'm only an extended editor. WP:GUIDANCE and Template_talk:Infobox_film would be good places to start. I will try to look into this when I have a little more time on my hands. Punkalyptic (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, I'll do some research on the above (thanks for that) as the issue needs resolving, why? Because currently the policy is bizarrely hypocritical, in that, US tv shows such as Game of Thrones are listed as 'US' even though most of the production is in the UK, so why is it listed as 'US' because HBO financed it, then the same editors create or edit a new article on a UK tv show which they describe as 'US' because production is carried out in the US even though the financing is British. Finally, seemingly, these same editors describe a international co-production film (Guardian Of The Galaxy) as 'US' even though it was produced in the UK and part-financed by the British, totally inconsistent! DNA Cowboy (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- I hate inconsistencies, and I've been researching the subject a lot in the last 6-8 months in which I've been gathering data on countries, production companies etc. for a project of mine. But just to be clear; Imho, it doesn't matter where a film was produced and/or shot. If that was the case, Gladiator would be Maltese. Half the US films would be Canadian etc. Unless, of course, the production company/team are from there/based there, which would definitely make a case. But if the people behind it are representing an American company and just so happen to shoot the film in a UK studio for location/tax purposes, that doesn't make it British. Again, personal opinion. Punkalyptic (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, it is the inconsistency that needs addressing.DNA Cowboy (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- I hate inconsistencies, and I've been researching the subject a lot in the last 6-8 months in which I've been gathering data on countries, production companies etc. for a project of mine. But just to be clear; Imho, it doesn't matter where a film was produced and/or shot. If that was the case, Gladiator would be Maltese. Half the US films would be Canadian etc. Unless, of course, the production company/team are from there/based there, which would definitely make a case. But if the people behind it are representing an American company and just so happen to shoot the film in a UK studio for location/tax purposes, that doesn't make it British. Again, personal opinion. Punkalyptic (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, I'll do some research on the above (thanks for that) as the issue needs resolving, why? Because currently the policy is bizarrely hypocritical, in that, US tv shows such as Game of Thrones are listed as 'US' even though most of the production is in the UK, so why is it listed as 'US' because HBO financed it, then the same editors create or edit a new article on a UK tv show which they describe as 'US' because production is carried out in the US even though the financing is British. Finally, seemingly, these same editors describe a international co-production film (Guardian Of The Galaxy) as 'US' even though it was produced in the UK and part-financed by the British, totally inconsistent! DNA Cowboy (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think we're vastly outgunned on this one. It's a conversation that has been going on for ages on various talk pages. I'm a little inexperienced myself in the ways of addressing policy guidelines and it would need a bit of effort not to come off as disruptive, if we're serious about this. We'll have to gather examples of established reliable sources not being as reliable or consistent when it comes to country of origin. In other words, we'll have to first prove why the current policy isn't working, so we can propose our own. A supportive admin voice in advance would help a lot, as I'm only an extended editor. WP:GUIDANCE and Template_talk:Infobox_film would be good places to start. I will try to look into this when I have a little more time on my hands. Punkalyptic (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)